UNI  USD  STATES  DSPiiEOMElfj;  01  AGRICULTURE 
Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics 


TAXATION  OE  RESTED  FARMS  -  1919 


A.  Preliminary  Report 


CONTENTS 

Page 


Introduction  :   1 

Relation  of  property  Taxes  to  Cash 

Rent  of  Earn  Real  Estate    3 

Sale  Value  a?  the  Pasis  of  Real  Estate 

'Taxation  .•   7 

Relation  of  Taxes  to  Rent  of  Urhan  Real 

Estate   ..J.   11 

Distribution  of  Property  Taxes  According  to 

Levying  .jurisdiction  and  Purpose    13 

Appendix    18 


Ysashington,  D.  C- 
March,  1925. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2013 


http://archive.org/details/rentedfarmsOOunit 


FABIS,  1919 


£y 

C.  0-  Brannen,  Associa.te  Agricultural  Economist,  and 
J.  T.  Sanders,  Assistant  Agricultural  Sconomiat, 
Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. 


The  Fation's  development  has  teen  marked  by  growth  in  govern- 
mental expense.     In  earlier  days  taxes  were  levied  mainly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  maintaining  law  and  order.     Since  that  time  public  education, 
public  health,  public  highways  and  various  other  activities  formerly 
undertaken  at  private  expense,  have  become  functions  of  government. 
In  addition,  most  of  the  older  established  functions  have  been  expanded 
and  broadened  to  meet  the  growth  of  population  and  wealth  and  the  conse- 
quent development  of  a  more  complicated  economic  society.  Underlying 
this  movement  has  been  the  growing  belief  that  more  and  better  services 
may  be  had  at  less  cost  by  collective  spending  and  that  all  the  people 
should  have  the  benefit  of  certain  advantages  necessary  to  the  advance- 
ment of  the  Nation. 

This  is  the  normal  development  of  the  progressive  community.  In- 
creased demands  for  public  service  cannot  be  satisfied,  however,  without 
increased  taxation.     The  evidence  of  this  is  to  be  seen  on  all  sides. 
Total  tax  revenues  in  the  United  States  increased  from  1913  to  1922,  from 
slightly  less  than  four  billion  to  almost  eight  billion  dollars,  or  198 
per  cent.  1/    A  considerable  part  of  this  increa.se  in  taxation,  of  course, 
resulted  from  the  late  war.    Put  it  is  estimated  by  the  Bureau  of  the 
Census  that  State  and  local  taxes  increased  115  per  cent  during  the  same 
period  and  that  the  general  property  tax,  which  is  the  chief  source  of 
State  and  local  revenues,  increased  160  per  cent  in  the  ten-year  period. 


The  expansion  in  governmental  activities  with  the  accompanying 
increase  in  public  expenditures,  however,  is  not  the  problem  with  which 
we  have  to  deal.     This  tendency  appears  in  the  development  of  all  civil- 
ized countries.     Occasional  reductions  in  the  volume  of  taxes  may  appear, 


\J  Report  of  the  Census,  1922. 


-  2  - 


yet  in  the  long  run  further  increases  in  taxation  may  be  expected.  While 
tax  reduction  alone  will  not  solve  the  problem  of  inequitable  taxation,  it 
is  always  advisable  to  consider  the  possibility  of  retrenchment.     The  pri- 
mary problem,  however,  is  to  bring  about  a  more  equitable  distribution  of 
the  public  burden  on  all  classes  of  property  and  all  taxpayers. 

Under  our  multiple  system  of  government  the  relationship  of  the  in- 
dividual to  the  State  and  to  the  minor  governmental  subdivisions  is  complex. 
In  view  of  this  complexity  and  the  variety  of  special  forms  of  taxation 
which  have  in  part  supplanted  earlier  uniform  methods,  a  statistical  measure- 
ment of  the  relative  tax  burden  or  of  the  tax  obligation  has  become  increas- 
ingly difficult.     In  fact,  it  may  be  questioned  whether  an  accurate  statis- 
tical measurement  is  ever  possible,  but  statistics  may  be  employed  in  a  very 
general  way  to  indicate  the  tax  situation  of  certain  broad  groups  of  tax- 
payers. 

The  problem  of  State  and  local  taxation,  particularly  as  it  relates 
to  farmers,  hinges  very  largely  on  the  methods  of  general  property  taxation, 
for  most  of  State  and  local  revenues  are  derived  from  the  general  property 
tax.     Of  all  tax  revenues  in  the  48.  States  in  1922,  8"  per  cent  crme  from 
this  source.     The  dependence  on  general  property  taxes  as  the  chief  source 
of  revenues  varies  somewhat  with  the  States,  as  shown  in  Table  1  of  the 
Appendix.     In  Texas  general  property  taxes  represented  96.3  per  cent  of  all 
tax  revenues,  and  in  Delaware  they  represented  55.9  per  cent. 

There  are  two  generally  accepted  viewpoints  frcm  which  taxation  may 
be  considered.     It  may  be  considered  as  personal  in  relation  to  the  indi- 
vidual's personal  ability  to  pay,  or  it  maybe  considered  as  objective  in 
relation  to  business  or  property  earnings.     The  amount  of  taxes  paid  in  the 
first  case  should  be  considered  in  the  light  of  its  effect  on  the  total  in- 
come of  the  individual  and  the  personal  sacrifice  made  because  of  the  tax. 
The  amour  t  paid  in  the  second  case  is  to  be  considered  in  its  effect  on  the 
business  venture,  although  any  tax  is  in  a  measure  personal  and  is  sure  to 
result  in  some  degree  of  sacrifice . 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  tax  on  real  estate  under  the  general, 
tax  system  has  become,  in  practice,  a  tax  on  property  as  such,  we  may  con- 
sider this  part  of  the  farmer's  total  tax  in  relation  to  farm  real,  estate 
earnings.     The  defects  of  the  general  property  tax  system  are  well  known. 
The  tax  is  based  on  capital  value,  irrespective  of  either  personal  or  prop- 
erty incomes.     A  tax  of  this  nature  applied  uniformly  to  practically  all 
classes  of  property  will  affect  the  earnings  of  one  class  more  than  another. 
Tor  example ,  one  class  of  property  may  yield  an  average  rate  of  return  of 
10  per  cent  while  another  yields  2  per  cent,  yet  the  tax  based  on  sale  value 
may  be  the  same.     If  the  tax  is  equivalent  to  one  per  cent  of  sale  value, 
it  might  absorb  10  per  cent  of  the  income  in  one  case  and  50  per  cent  in  the 
other.    Besides,   there  are  varying  degrees  of  difficulty  in  reaching  differ- 
ent classes  of  property  for  taxation  by  this  method.     The  greater  the  extent 
to  v,hich  this  is  tiue,   the  greater  will  be  the  inequality  in  taxation  in  re- 
lation to  income  or  earnings.     Tor  these  and  other  reasons  State  and  local 
taxation  operates  to  the  peculiar  disadvantage  of  farmers. 


-  3  - 


The  purpose  of  the  present  study  has  "been  to  determine  for  the  year 
1919  the  relation  of  State  and  local  property  taxes  on  real  estate  to  farm 
real  estate • earnings.     The  real  estate  tax  is  compared  with  income  from 
rent  of  farms  rented  for  cash  in  selected  areas.     Data  for  o  wr  exonerated 
farms  have  not  been  included  because  of  the  greater  difficulty  of  obtaining 
the  earnings  of  farms  operated  "by  their  owners.     Earnings  of  land  "based  on 
cash  rent  are  considered  representative  of  , land  income  at  a  given  time  in 
communities  where  cash  rent  is  prevalent.—^ 

Eor  comparison  with  the  tar  on  farms,  data,  were  collected  in  a  few 
of  the  counties  to  show  the  relation  of  taxes  to  rent  of  urban  real  estate. 
Analyses  were  made  to  indicate  the  proportions  of  the  tax  levied  by  the 
State,  by  the  county  and  by  local  governmental  agencies,  ard  to  show  the 
major  purposes  for  which  such  taxes  were  levied. 

A  total  of  3,221  farms  in  31  counties  in  25  States  are  included  in 
the  study.     The  number  of  acres  is  shown  in  Table  1.     The  counties  selected 
for  study  are  considered  fairly  representative  of  the  agricultural  sections 
in  which  they  are  located,  although  some  of  them  may  be  slightly  above  the 
average  for  the  State  as  a  whole.     In  size,  extant  of  improvement,  average 
value  per  acre,  and  the  percentage  of  the  total  value  of  real  estate  in  im- 
provements, as  shown  in  Table  2  of  the  Appendix,   the  selected  farms  are 
generally  representative  of  ail  farms  in  the  county. 

Relation  of  Property  Taxes  to  Cash  Rent  of 
Tarm  Real  Estate 

•Property  taxes,  State  ard  local,  absorbed  in  1919  a  large  part  of 
the  net  rent  of  farms  in  most  of  the  counties  included  in  this  survey. 
This  was  true  even  though  in  that  time  rents  were  relatively  high  and  taxes 
relatively  low.     Since  1919  rents  have  -declined  and  taxes  have  increased. 
Though  the  percentage  of  rent  used  in  the  payment  of  taxes  was  rather  large 
in -most  of  the  areas,  yet  it  was  much  higher  in  some  than  in  others. 
(Table  1;      The  tax  e^ressed  in  percentage  of  net  rent  was  highest  in  the 
Middle  Atlantic  and  seme  of  the  Western  States  and  lowest  in  the  Southern 
States.     In  general  this  percentage  for  the  Uorth  Central  and  Rocky  Moun- 
tain States  fell  "between  thess  extremes. 

2/  In  selected  counties  surveys  were  made  of  all  cash- rer ted  farms  of  ten 
or  more  cultivated  acres  as  reported  by  the  census  of  1920.     Where  there  was 
evidence  of  kinship  "between:  landowner  and  tenant  or  where  the  data  were  other- 
wise inadequate  for  this  purpose,  farms  vvere  not  included.     Erom  census  rec- 
ords were  taken  the  mmfber  of  acres,  cash  rent  paid  in  1919  and  valuation  of 
land  and  improvements.     The  number  of  acres,  a-ssessed  valuation,  taxes  levied 
as  of  1919,  and  other  necessary  information  were  obtained  from  official  rec- 
ords by  personal  visit  to  the  county.     Special  assessments  and  acreage  taxes 
for  drainage  or  levee  were  not  included  in  the  tax  statistics. 

The  study  was  made  by  the  Division  of  Agricultural  Einance  and  the  Di- 
vision of  Land  Economics,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. 

3/  To  ascertain  net  rent  before  taxes  were  paid,  allowance  was  made  for 
depreciation  and  repairs  and  for  insurance  of  farm  buildings.     In  making  the 
deduction  for  depreciation  and  repairs,  the  annual  rate  of  depreciation  and 


Table  I.     Relation  of  Taxes  to  Net  Cash  "Rent  cf  Farm  Real  Estate  Per 
Acre  and  Percentage  of  Pent  Absorbed  by  Taxes,  1913. 


:    Net  rent 

:  Relation  of 

State 

:    per  acre 

:  Tax 

:     taxes  to 

and 

:  Far 

m  s  [1 

:  (before 

:  per 

:     Net  Rent 

County 

:     deducting  . 

:     .  Acre 

: (before  deduct- 

: taxes') 

ing  taxes) 

:  Number 

:  Acres 

:  Dollars 

:  Dollars 

!      Per  Cent 

New  York  -  Delaware 

:  137 

:  20,794 

r  1.23 

:  '  .38 

:  30.9 

-  Niagara 

:  66 

:       6 , 170 

:  2.75 

:  .85 

:         30. 9 

Pennsylvania  -  Chester 

:    •  177  .  • 

:  13,525 

:'         1--  83  • 

:••  1.20 

:  65.6 

Ohio    -  Franklin 

:  90 

:  7,279 

:         6.30  . 

:  1.41 

:         22 . 4 

Indiana  -■  Tipton 

:  77 

6,293 

r.  .  9.38 

.  1.41 

:  15.0 

Illinois  -  Macoupin 

:  •  79 

;     •  7 , 510 

i  :   '.  .64 

:  18.2 

Michigan  -  Lenawee 

:  111 

:    .  ■  8,863 

4.40 

:  1.67 

:  38.0 

Wi scon sin  -  Dane 

:  106 

:  11,553 

:         3. 98 

;  1.18 

:         29. 6 

Minnesota  -  McLecd 

:    ■  .87 

:  12,245 

:•  3.49 

:  .85 

:  24.4 

south  Dakota  -  Moody 

:  128 

:  29,475 

4.76 

•  .  ,.  .77 

:  16.2 

Iowa  -  Union 

:  113 

:  16,094 

:  5.29 

:  .84 

:  15.9 

-  Story 

100 

:  14,217 

:         7.28.  . 

:  1.37 

:         18. 8 

Nebraska  -  Wayne 

88 

16,161 

5.74 

:  .67 

:  11.7 

Kansas  -  Sutler 

155 

42 , 787 

1.73 

.41 

:-  23.7 

Virginia  -  Southampton 

36 

5,032  • 

1 . 96 

.11  : 

5.6 

North  Carolina  -  Halifax 

161 

29,235 

2.08 

.  13 

6.3 

Georgia  -  Bleckley 

150 

14,810  : 

2.94      .  : 

.22 

7.5 

Alabama  -  Montgomery  ; 

181 

7,383  : 

2.41 

.  17 

7.1 

Mississippi  -  Tunica  t 

101  ; 

6,810  : 

14 . 24  : 

1.61 

11.  3 

Tennessee  -  Rutherford 

95 

7,684  ; 

3. 14  : 

.24  ; 

7.6 

Arkansas  -  St.  Francis 

'     37  3 

2, 561  : 

5.11     '  : 

,53  : 

10.4 

Oklahoma  -  Payne 

196  -  : 

26,209  : 

1.30  : 

.38    .  . 

29 . 2 

Colorado  -  Delta 

57 

3,899  : 

4.04 

.96  : 

24.0 

-  Otero  : 

52  : 

Cj  i  ^  1 3 

12.63  : 

2.19  : 

37.4 

Utah  -  Salt  Lake  : 

28  . 

987  : 

9.81  : 

2.82  : 

28.7 

Idaho  -  Ada  ; 

66  : 

3,032  : 

10.02 

2.85  : 

28.4 

-  Madison  : 

32  : 

2,582  : 

11.31  : 

1.75  | 

15-6 

Oregon  -  Washington  : 

115  : 

11,880  ! 

4.34  : 

1.64  : 

37 . 8 

California  -  Sacramento  : 

130  : 

11,814  : 

10.49  ; 

1.36  : 

13.0 

-  Merced  : 

118 

12,091  : 

9.78  : 

1.63  : 

16.7 

Arizona  -  Maricopa 

132  ; 

11,155  : 

26.^1  ; 

2. 61  : 

9.8 

/ 1    Acreage  is  that  appearing  on  the  tax  record,  which  is  not  always 
identical  with  census  acreage  shown  in  Table  2  of  the  appendix. 


The  relation  of  taxes  to  rent  .will,  of  course,  vary-  in  different 
places  depending  upon  economic  as  well  as  tax  conditions.     It  is  not  pos- 
sible to  explain  all  of  these  conditions,  hut  the  extent  to  which- the  data 
shown  for  different  areas  lack  comparability  may  be  pointed  out.  This 
will  explain  in  part  the  different  percentages  shown  for  the  counties  sur- 
veyed. 


In  the  Southern  States  the  so-called  rent  includes  not  only  real 
estate  rent,  but  returns  for  management  and  risk.     The  percentages  shown 
for  Southern  counties,  therefore,  are  lower  than  they  would  he  if  the  rent 
proper  could  have  "been  accurately  determined.     In  dairying  or  trucking  sec- 
tions where  most  of  the  land  is  operated  hy  owners,  the  rent  charge  on  the 
few  farms  that  happen  to  he  leased  is  likely  to  he  nominal.     Also  in  sec- 
tions where  farms  are  over-improved,  that  is,  where  the  value  of  farm 
buildings  is  more  than  is  ordinarily  required  for  farm  needs,   the  net  rent 
is  less  than  it  otherwise  would  he  because  of  the  larger  deduction  made  for 
depreciation  and  insurance,  while  the  landowner  in  such  cases  probably  re- 
ceived no  rent  for  improvements  in  excess  of  farm  needs. 

In  Chester  County,  Pennsylvania,  the  value  of  improvements  was  ap- 
proximately half  of  the  total  value  of  real  estate,  and  the  deduction  made 
for  depreciation  and  insurance  was  over  half  of  the  gross  rent.     It  is  for 
this  reason,   in  part  at  least,   that  the  percentage  shown  for  Chester  County, 
and  for  other  counties  where  similar  conditions  prevail,  is  higher  then  in 
other  counties.     The  net  income  of  the  selected  farms,  and  the  percentage 
of  the  rent  required  in  the  payment  of  taxes,  may  thus  be  higher  or  lower 
than  the  average  for  the  areas  studied,  according  to  the  effect  of  such 
special  conditions.     The  results  of  the  study  should  be  considered  as 
broadly  indicative  of  the  relation  of  taxes  to  real  estate  earnings  rather 
than  as  conclusive  evidence  that  an  exact  percentage  of  earnings  is  re- 
quired in  the  payment  of  taxes  in  any  particular  county. 

The  relative  amount  of  the  tax  on  farm- real  estate  under  the  pre- 
vailing system  of  State  and  local  taxation  may  be  affected  hy  any  of  the 
following  factors:     (1)    Exemption  of  farm  real  estate,    (2)  classification 
of  property  for  taxing  purposes,   (3)  percentage  assessment  of  farm  res,i 
estate  as. compared  with  other  classes  of  property,    (4).  degree  of  dependence 
upon  property  taxes  for  State,  county  and  local  revenues,    (5)  the  extent  of 
development  of  public  improvements  as  affecting  the  volume  of  expenditures, 


repairs  on  farm  buildings  ascertained  in  farm  management  and  cost  of  pro- 
duction studies  made  by  the  "J.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture  in  the  various 
States  was  applied  to  the  census  valuation  of  improvements  on  'the  farms 
studied. 

lor  the  cost  of  insurance,   the  current  rates  of  insurance  in  the  dif- 
ferent States,  ascertained  by  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  was  applied  to 
three-fourths  of  the  census  valuation  of  improvements,  which  allows  a  con- 
servative reduction  for  the  cost  of  insurance.     In  any  case  the  margin  of 
error  is  small,   since  this  item  of  expense  is  relatively  unimportant  in 
most  are^s.     The  rates  used  for  depreciation  and  repairs  and  the  average 
rate  of  insurance  from  1916  to  1920  are  given  for  the  several  counties  in 
Table  3  of  the  appendix.  -  . 


-  6  - 


(6)  the  extent  to  which  other  classes  escape  taxation  under  the  general 
property  tax  system,  and  (7)  the  use  of  sale  value  as  the  only  tasis  of 
real  estate  assessment. 

Farm  real  estate  included  in  this  report  enjoyed  no  exemption  from 
taxation  of  any  consequence.     In  South  Dakota,  dwelling  houses  occupied  by 
owners  were  exempt  in  1919  to  the  extent  of  $500,  although  such  exemption 
did  not  apply  in  case  of  rented  farms.     In  Indiana,   50  per  cent  of  the 
mortgaged  value  of  farm  real  estate  was  subject  to  exemption  not  to  exceed 
$1,000  (Table  5  of  the  Appendix).     To  the  extent  that  other  classes  of 
property  are  exempt,  land  may  be  expected  to  bear  a  heavier  tax. 

The  classif ica.tion  of  property  for  different  rates  of  assessment 
under  the  general  property  tax  had  no  influence  on  the  amount  of  the  tax, 
except  in  the  Minnesota  county,  where  farm  real  estate  was  a.sscssed  at  one- 
third  of  "full  value,"  while  certain  other  classes  of  property  were  assessed 
at  a  higher  percentage.     The  legal  provision  in  certain  States  for  assessing 
all  property  at  only  a  part  of  the  actual  value,  as,  for  example,  in  Iowa, 
Illinois  and  Alabama,  had  the  effect  of  reducing  taxes  on  real  estate  in  so 
far  as  public  revenues  were  derived  from  sources  other  than  the  general 
property  tax. 

The  policy  or  practice  of  disregarding  legal  requirements  and  assess- 
ing property  at  varying  percentages  of  actual  value  certainly  has  its  ef- 
fect on  the  amount  of  the  tax  in  individual  cases  but  whether  farm  real  es- 
tate in  the  aggregate  bears  less  tax  thereby  is  a  debatable  question.  low 
valuations  are  accompanied  by  high  rates  of  levy,  and  the  practice  of  par- 
tial assessment  affords  greater  opportunity  for  inequality  all  around.  A 
greater  degree  of  equality  is  probably  attained  under  the  classified  prop- 
erty tax  with  thorough  assessment  of  all  classes  of  property  at  full  value, 
provided  the  percentage  of  value  to  be  taxed  for  different  classes  follows 
earning  capacity. 

The  state  of  a  county's  development  in  public  improvement  reflects 
to  a  considerable  extent  the  amount  of  public  expenditure  and  likewise  the 
amount  of  the  real  estate  tax.     Good  roads  and  modern  school  buildings  ac- 
count for  a  large  part  of  such  tax,  since  the  revenues  for  such  purposes  are 
erived  usually  from  local  taxation.     No  great  difference  can  be  seen  in 
this  respect  as  between  older  and  more  newly  developed  counties.     In  the 
°h    v  counties  considerable  improvement  may  have  been  made  in  the  past, 
which  m  many  cases  now  has  to  be  done  over,  whereas  in  newer  settled  coun- 
ties such  improvement  is  just  now  xmier  way.     The  chief  difference  exists  as 
between  the  county  that  is  making  large  expenditures  for  roads  and  schools, 
either  initial  or  replacement,  and  the  county  which  is  not  making  such  ex- 
penditures. 

amoun't  of  t5le  tax  on  farm  property  may  also  be  higher  in  one 
State  than  another  depending  upon  the  extent  to  which  schools,  roads  and 
similar  public  services  are  financed  by  means  of  local  taxation.     The  effect 
of  this  factor  was  not  determined  for  the  counties  surveyed.     The  tax  is 
likely  to  be  less  than  it  would  be  otherwise,  however,  where  the  State  de- 
rives considerable  revenues  from  sources  other  than  the  general  property  tax. 


-  7  - 


Only  three  States  included  in  this  report,  New  York,  Pennsylvania 
and  California,  levied  in  1919  no  property  tax  for  State  purposes.!/ 
In  these  States  the  ratio  of  tax  to  both  census  valuation  and  cash  rent 
was  comparatively  high.     This  situation  may  have  resulted  from  the  greater 
public  expenditure -rather  than  from  a  disproportionate  tax  on  real  estate. 
In  certain  other  States  that  rely  on  other  sources  of  revenue  for  State 
purposes,  such  as  Ohio,  Minnesota,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  Alabama, 
taxes  on  farm  real  estate  appeared  more  favorable  in  comparison  with  cen- 
sus valuation  and  cash  rent,  but  since  State  revenues  constitute  only  a 
minor  part  of  total  revenues,  absence  of  the  State  tax,  as  a  rule,  has  a 
minor  effect  in  reducing  taxes  on  real  estate. 

Whether  little  or  no  State  property  tax  levy  gives  comparative  re- 
lief from  taxation  depends  upon  the  extent  to  which  the  State  distributes 
revenues  from  other  sources  in  support  of  local  institutions  and  facili- 
ties,  such  as  schools  and  roads.     If  such  local  functions  are  supported 
by  local  taxes,  no  large  measure  of  relief  will  be  felt  by  real  estate 
merely  by  eliminating  the  taxation  of  real  estate  for  State  purposes. 

The  collection  of  occupation  and  business  taxes  by  counties,  a  char- 
acteristic of  the  local  systems  of  taxation  in  some  of  the  Southern  States, 
probably  has  some  effect  in  reducing  taxes  on  land  in  Southern  counties. 

It  has  always  been  the  case  that  while  many  other  classes  of  prop-  . 
erty  escape  assessment,  real  estate  never  does.     As  the  administration  of 
the  general  property  tax  becomes  more  effective  in  the  assessment  of  real 
estate,  it  becomes  perhaps  less  effective'  iri  reaching  many  classes  of  per- 
sonal property.     If  all  other  classes  of  property  subject  to  the  tax  were 
assessed  with  equal  efficiency  as  real  estate,   the  tax  on  real  estate  would 
probably  be  reduced  in  most  of  the  States  by  a  very  substantial  amount. 

Sale  Value  as  the  Basis  of  Real  Estate  Taxation 

farm  real  estate  is  assessed  for  taxation  by  State  and  local  govern- 
ments on  the  basis  of  market  or  sale  value.     Sale  value  of  land  has  been 
defined  as  "nothing  but  the  capitalized  value  of  net  profits  ordinarily  de- 
rived from  its  use."  I/.  As  expressed  by  another  writer,  the  value  to  be 
assigned  to  a  given  tract  of  land  depends  upon  (1)  the  income  which  the 
land  yields  at  a  given  time,    (2)  the  anticipated  increases  or  decreases  in 
this  income,  and  (3)  the  rate  of  capitalization  of  such  income. §/     It  is 
evident  from  these  definitions  that  there  are  two  primary  elements  in  the 


4/  In  New  York  the  State  levied  a  property  tax  for  schools  which  was  prac- 
tically offset  in  the  two  counties  studied  by  apportionment  of  State  funds 
for  schools  by  the  State  Commissioner  of  Education  in  accordance  v/ith  the 
provisions  of  the  education  lav?.     See  article  4,   section  71,  of  the  Tax  Law 
of  the  State  of  New  York,  1920. 

5/  Seligman,  E.  R.  A.,   Incidence  of  Taxation,  4th  Edition,  p.  262. 

6/  Chambers,  C.  R. ,  Relation  of  Land  Income  to  Land  Value,  U-  3-  Depart- 
ment Bui.  No.   1224,  p.  28. 


-  8  - 


value  of  real  estate,  its  annual  or  use' value  and  its  speculative  value. 
If  it  is  assumed  that  the  income  is  entirely  of  a  monetary^ nature ,  the  im- 
portance of  each  of  these  elements  may  he  approximately  measured.     The  cap- 
italized annual  rental'may  he  used  to  represent  the  annual  value,  and  cen- 
sus valuation  may  he  used  to  represent  the  comhined  annual  and  speculative 
value.,  that  is,  the  selling  price.     The  difference  "between  census  valuation 
and  the  capitalized  annual  rental  hy  this  method  would  represent  the  part 
of  sale  value  which  is  "based  on  expected  increase"  or  decrease  in  income. 

The  current'  long-term  mortgage  rate  of  interest  may  he  used  in  cap- 
italizing net  cash  rental,  for  it  is  assumed  tha't  the ^  farmer  as  a  rule  has 
the  alternative  of  selling  his  farm  and  investing  the  proceeds  in  such 
mortgage  securities. ^>  : 

When  using  this  rate'  as  reported  hy  the  census-  for  capitalizing 
annual  rental,  it  is  found  (Tahle  2);  ••that  a  relatively  -  small  percentage  of 
census  valuation  is  represented  hy  annual' ' income.  'v  The  capitalized  rental 
in  only  one  of  the  31  counties  was  more -than  a  hundred  per  cent  of  census 
valuation.     Outside  the  southern  and  a  few  of  the  western  States  it  was  50 
per  cent  or  less.     In  southern,  counties,  except  Payne  County,  Oklahoma,  the 
capitalized  cash  rental  was  more  than  50  per  cent  of  census  valuation,  al- 
though the  rental  in  this  region  is  "  in  part  a -return  for 'management  and  risk. 

In  fact,  in  the  majority  of  cases',  annual -rental  accounted  for  less 
than  half  of  the  valuation  reported  "by"  the  census  and-  in  15  of  the  31  coun- 
ties it  accounted  for  less  than  -two -fifths.     The  low  figure  of  10.5  per 
cent  shown  for 'Chester-  County,  Pennsylvania,'  might  have  heen  due  to  the 
relatively  low  average  rate  of  return  on  cash- rented  farms  as  compared  with 
all  farms  in  the  county,  or  to  the  greater  deduction  made  from  rent  for  de- 
preciation and  insurance  on  excess  improvements.     It  is  also  possihle  that 
the  farms  surveyed  in  Chester  County  were  not  representative  for  other 
reasons.    : .;'  "     ...      .   .  '        u  : 

In  the  middle  western  couhties,  where  capitalized  annual  rental  per- 
haps more  accurately  reflects  real  estate  earnings,  less"  than  half  of  the 
census  valuation  of  1920  according  to  this  method  of  calculation,  is  assign- 
ahle  to  current  income  at  that  time  (Table  3).     The  remainder  may  he  con- 
sidered as  "based  on  the  mere  expectation  that  rents  would  increase  at  some 
future  time.  "r:'-  "  •'      "  - 

This  means  that  the  greater  part  of  the  sale  value  of  these  farms 
m  1919  was  "based-on  the  expectation  that  rentals  would -increase.     This  ex- 
pectation has  not  heen  realized.     Instead  of  increasing,  rentals  have'  heen 
meterially  reduced,  in  some  cases  as  nnich  as  50  per  cent.    A  recent  study 
of  Jmore.  than  100  farms  in  Indiana  shows  rents  from  "1919  to  1923  to  have  de- 
clined 'from  $7. 49  to  $4.25  per  acre,  xvhile  the  tax  increased  from  90  cents 
to  $1.41  per  acre. 2/ 


U  Department  Bulletin  cited  above,-  pp.  42-45. 

8/  press  release  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  dated  March  25,  1924. 


-  9  - 


Table  2.     Capitalized  Net  Cash  Rental  Compared  with  Census 

Valuation,  1919. 


:  Capitalized 

Census 

:  Capitalized 

State 

:      net  cash 

:  Valuation 

:     net  cash 

and 

:  •      rental  -* 

:  per 

:  rental  in  per 

County 

:      per  acre 

:  acre 

:  cent  of  census 

valuation 

Dollars 

:     ■  Dollars 

:      Per  cent 

New  York  -  Delaware  '"; 

:  "16.35 

:  28.57 

:  57.2 

-  Niagara 

r    '  "  35. 19 

i  .  110.31 

:  '31.9 

Pennsylvania  -  Chester 

:    :  12.12 

:'  115.71 

:  10.5 

Ohio  -  Franklin  ' 

"  82.88 

:         194 . 67 

:  42.6 

Indiana-  -■  Tipton 

:  139.82' 

:  238.63 

:  58.6 

Illinois  -  Macoupin 

:       '  51.43 

:  127.58 

:           40 . 3 

Michigan  -  Lenawee 

:  '47.39 

:  126.43 

: '         37 . 9 

Wisconsin  -  Dane 

:        '  54.90 

:  154.95 

:           35.4  . 

Minnesota  -  McLebd 

49.81  ; 

136.61 

:'  36.5 

South  Dakota  -  Moody 

:  72.55 

206.39 

:  35.2 

Iowa  -  Union 

:       1  80.91    -  '• 

165.83 

:  48.8 

-  Story 

:  109.44 

296.07 

:           37.0    ,  . 

Nebraska  -"wayne' 

•          93.89  • 

I          '243.31  ' 

:  38.6 

Kansas  -  Butler  • 

'22.00  : 

5  57.01 

:  38.6 

Virginia  -  Southampton  ■ 

-'  30.83 

•  39.80 

:           77. 5 

Nortn  Carolina  --  Halifax 

:          32 .  50 

:           47 . 86 

:           67 . 9 

Georgia  -  Bleckley 

38.86  '      ' : 

•  41.46 

93.7 

A    "1    _  T                                        _  _ 

Alabama  -  Montgomery 

:       ■  34.46  : 

'  50.81 

:  67.8 

Mississippi  _  Tunica  • 

t       "203.71    -   '  • 

133.65 

:  152.4 

Tennessee  -  Rutherford 

-48.33  : 

68.66 

70.4 

Arkansas  -  St.  Francis    ■  • 

:  61.07    •  '  ': 

99.24 

:  61.5 

Oklahoma  -  Payne- 

14.84  .  i 

"  37.  56  ; 

39.5 

Colorado  -  Delta  i 

-  43.24  ■'•  ; 

'  79.02  : 

54.7 

-  Otero-  : 

153.38  ; 

187.40  : 

81.8 

Utah  -  Salt  Lake               ■  "; 

:  99.86  ': 

278.13  : 

35.9 

Idaho  -  Ada 

'  99.58  .    .  : 

237.84 

41.9 

-'  Madi  son  :         :  •    •  ; 

123.90    '  :: 

252.12  : 

49.1 

Oregon  -  Washington  : 

44 . 26  : 

136.51  : 

32.4 

California  -  Sacramento  • 

142.66  : 

184.85  : 

77.2 

-  Merced  ; 

123.48  : 

221.49  : 

55.7 

Arizona  -  Maricopa  : 

317.11  : 

307.75      .  : 

103.0 

ne  rates  of  capitalization  used  for  different  counties  were  the  pre- 
g  farm  mortgage  rates  reported  by  the  census  of  1920. 


-  10  - 


Table  3.     Percentage  of  Census  Valuation  Assignable  to 
Current  Income  From  Rent,  Capitalized  at 
Average  Rate  of  Interest  on  First  Mortgages, 
1919. 


State                   ••  ; 

;       'Census  Valuation 

and  ■: 
County  ; 

Census 

\Fs*  Inn  "hi 

: Assignable  to1 
:  net  rental 

Assignable 
tn  other 
factors 

Per  Cent 

.        "Dei  Y»    P  Q-n  +■ 

Ohio  -  Franklin 

'  100  0 

;           ^iCi .  d  , 

^7  4 

Indiana  -  Tipton 

■  loo  0 

J-\J  w  •  \J 

:  58.6 

41.4 

Illinois  -  Macoupin 

:  100.0 

:  40.3 

59.7 

Michigan  -  Lenawee 

100 . 0 

:  37.9 

62. 1 

Wisconsin  -  Dane 

:  100.0 

:  35.4 

64.6 

Minnesota  -  McLeod  • 

' 100 . 0 

:         36. 5 

63.5 

South  Dakota  -Moody 

:  100.0 

:  35.2 

64.8 

Iowa  -  Union     :          •  • 

•100.0 

:  48.8 

51.2 

-  Story 

:  100.0 

:  37.0 

63.0 

Nebraska  -  Wayne  • 

100.0 

:       '  38.6  ; 

61.4 

Kansas  -  Butler 

•100.0 

:         38.6  : 

61.4 

The  fluctuation  in  rent,  as- well  as  the  fluctuation  in  land  values, 
illustrates  the  uncertain  foundation  upon  which  the  farm  real  estate  tax 
"based  on  sale  value  rests.     The  annual  tax  is  "based  not  only  on  present 
income  "but  on  predicted  incomes  which  may  or  may  not  he  realized.     If  all 
property  subject  to  the  general  property  tax  possessed  equally  this  con- 
ditional element,  assuming  uniform  assessments,   the  chance  of  inequality 
"because  of  this  factor  would  be  greatly  reduced.    But  this  is  not  the  case. 
The  value  of  many  classes  of  property  other  than  farm  land  follows  closely 
capitalized  annual  income,  or  if  not  closely,  certainly  more  closely  than 
farm  real  estate.     In  fact,  the  value  of  real  estate  itself  follows  more 
closely  the  capitalized  annual  .earnings  in  the  case  of  some  farms  than 
others.     This  variation  in  the  relation  of  annual  and  sale  value  of  farms 
explains  in  part  the  different  percentages  of  rents  absorbed  by  taxes, 
shown  in  Table  I. 


Table  4.    Annual  Rental  Capitalized  at  Average 
Interest  Rates  in  Relation  to.  Assessed  Valuation,  1920. 


State 

and 

 Count  v 

Capitalized  Sental, 

Per  Cent  of 
Assessed  Valuation 

:'                 Per  Cent 

Ohio  -  Franklin  . 

71.3 

Indiana  -  Tipton . 

:  71.0 

Illinois  -  Macoupin-  ". 

127.1 

Michigan  -  Lenawee 

46.4 

Wisconsin  -  Dane  ' ' 

?             .  47.7 

Minnesota  -  McLeod 

:'■     '■  48.7 

South  Dakota  -  Moody 

76.6 

Iowa  -  Union 

:                    120.5               .  . 

-  Story 

t  -            ;  114.0 

Nebraska  -  Wayne 

-.  -63.5 

Kansas  -  Butler 

.62  .7 

■When  the  annual  value,  as  derived  above,   is  compared  with  assessed 
valuation,  Table  5,  it  is  found  that  the  capitalized  annual  rental  in  8 
of  the  .11  counties  surveyed  in  the  North  Central  States  represented  less 
than  77  per  cent  of  the  assessed  valuation.     In  3  of  the  counties  it  rep- 
resented less  than  50  per  cent,  while  in  3  of  the  counties  it'was  more 
than  100  per  cent  of  assessed  valuation.     This  illustrates  the  slight 
relation  that  exists  in  some  States  between  the  annual  income  from- farms 
and  the  annual  tax.     The.  variability  in  the  relation  of  the  tax  to  census 
valuation  is  shown  in  Table  6  of  the  Appendix. 


Relation  of  Taxes  to  Rent  of  Urban  Real  Estate 


were 


iaxes  on  urban  real  estate,  in  percentage  of  net  rent^/ ascertained 
for  a  limited  number  of  properties  in  10  counties  where  farm  surveys  were 
made.     The  percentage  in  7  of  the  10  counties,  as  shown  in  Table  5,  was 


-  -12:  ■- 


practically  the  same  as  that  found  for . farm  real  estate  in  the  same  coun- 
ties..5/    In  two  of  the  counties-  this  percentage  for.  farm  real  estate  was 
.two  and  a, half  times-  that  for  the.  urban ,,12/  and  in  Washington  County, 
Oregon,  one  and  a  ha.lf  times  as. much.  =±1     ..  ■:, 

.    .While  buildings  represent  a  higher  percentage' of  the  value  of  urban 
real  estate  than  of -  farms  (about  50  per  cent  for  these  properties)  urban 
and,  rural  real  estate,  are  near- enough  alike  in  most  respects  for  trust- 
worthy comparison  of  Obec*  taxes'  in  relation  to  rents.     Taxes  on  urban  real 
estate  include  in  part  special  municipal  .levies  for  providing  special 
facilities  such  as  light  and  water,  which  the  farmer  provides  at  private 
expense.     If  only  :taxes  for  the  .same  or  similar .purposes  had  been  included 
in  these  statistics,  the-  tax  in  percentage  of  rent  of  urban  real  estate 
would  have  been  less  in  practically  all  counties  than  that  shown  for  farms. 


Table  5.     Property  Taxes  of  Urban  Real  Estate,  Percentage 
■'.    :       of  Net- Rent  ,  1919.. 


Relation  of 


Approximate 

Average 

:     Taxe  s  to 

S  t  a  t.  e      ■  .  •  r. 

•Prop- 

average  . 

net  rental 

:  Average 

net  rent 

and 

:  er- 

value  of 

(Before 

:  Tax  on 

:  (Before  de- 

County 

:  ties 

land  and 

.deducting 

:  Peal- 

ducting 

buildings 

taxe  s ) / 1 

:  Estate 

taxes) 

Number 

Dollars 

:  Dollars 

:  Dollars  : 

Per  Cent 

New  York  -  Niagara. 

.  15 

$  17,662 

$  1,604 

:$  197.99 

•  :  12.3 

Indiana.  -  Tipton  . 

:  20 

11,827 

1, 322 

208 . 74 

:  15.8 

Illinois  -  Macoupin 

:  48 

14,369 

:        .    917 ■ 

:  144.80 

;  '  15.8 

Wisconsin  -  Dane 

:  -.    9  : 

216, 504 

35,429 

:  3,956.60 

11.2 

Minnesota  -  McLeod 

21  : 

9,685  : 

638 

:  158.52 

24.8 

South  Dakota  -  Moody 

38 

10,903  • 

612 

:  128.11' 

20 .  9  ' 

Iowa  -  Union 

:  16 

1,329 

:•  212.17 

:  16.0 

Kansas  -  Butler  - 

;    15  - 

r—    26,961  : 

3,634 

:  814.06 

22.4 

Colorado  -  Delta 

•  17 

13,611  : 

1,094 

278.59. 

25.5 

Oregon  -  Washington  . 

15  : 

216,282 

1,186 

:  335.96. 

28.3 

/l_  Deductions  from  gross  rent,   to  obtain  net  rent,  include  repairs  and 
insurance  reported  for  the.  properties  and  2  per  cent  of  assessed  valu- 
ation of  buildings  for  structural  deterioration. 


9/  These  seven  counties  are  Tipton,  Indiana-;  Macoupin,'  Illinois;  McLeod, 
Minnesota;  Moody,.  South  Dakota;- Union,   Iowa;  Butler ,  -Kansas;  and  Delta', 

Colorado.  .  -    -   -•->    . -h         ■• : 

10/  Counties:  Niagara,  New  York;  Dane,  Wisconsin. 

11/  The  urban  real  estate-  included  in  the-s'e  counties  was  mainly  busi- 
ness property  with  brick  and  stone  .structures  in  good  or  medium  condition, 
except  in  McLeod  County,  Minnesota,  and  Moody  County,  South  Dakota,  where 
some  frame  residences  were  included.  ■  -   ■       •  •  ' 


Figure  6.      Distribution  of  Property  Taxes  /l 
According  to  Levying  Jurisdiction. 


State 

Levied  by 

and  : 

Township 

County 

State 

County  : 

and  Local 

District 

Per  Cent 

Per  Cent 

Per  Cent 

Pennsylvania  -  Chester/2 

•   

18.3 

;  81.7 

Ohio  -  Franklin    [3  \ 

5.5 

:         47.6  : 

46.9 

Indiana  -  Tipton  /4  : 

21.2 

23.2  : 

55.6 

Michigan  -  Lenawee  [b 

21.6 

:          57.3  i 

21.1 

South  Dakota  -  Moody  /§_ 

:       20 . 8  : 

66.6  : 

12.6 

Iowa  -  Union  /? 

:  14.6 

:         38.5  : 

t  46.9 

-  Story 

1;  11.0 

34 . 1 

54.9 

Nebraska  -  Wayne 

r  26.0 

:  29.1 

:       44. 9 

Alabama  -  Montgomery 

r  38.2 

:  61.8 

Mississippi  -  Tunica  [Q_ 

:  14.7 

u  74.7 

:  10.6 

Tennessee  -  Rutherford 

:  30.1 

13.7 

:  56.2 

Arkansas  -  St.  Francis 

:.  21.5 

:         24.3  : 

54.2 

Colorado  -  Delta 

:  16.5 

s  "  30.4 

53.1 

-  Otero 

:  18.4 

:         30 . 9 

50.7 

Idaho  -  Madison  /_9 

25.3 

:         51.6  : 

23.1 

California  -  Merced 

79.3  : 

20.7 

/l    Including  all  property  taxes  levied  in  the  county  in 
1919  except  special  municipal,  drainage  or  levee  and  ir- 
rigation taxes,  unless  specifically  stated  otherwise. 
(As  reported  by  county  officials  or  computed  from  offi- 
cial reports). 

[2_    Only  taxes  levied  on  177  selected  farms. 

/3    Only  taxes  levied  on  rural  property. 

/4    The  district  road  tax  is  classed  with  township  and  local 
district  taxes,  although  in  many  cases  the  township  road 
is  a  part  of  the  county  system. 
Including  drainage  tax. 

16    Hot  including  taxes  on  moneys  and  credits  and  telephone 
property. 

[Z    Taxes  on  rural  property.  ■  • 

[Q_  Taxes  on  cultivable  land,  not  including  acreage  levee  tax. 
/— i.    Bot  including  predatory  animal  tax. 


-  14  - 


Distribution  of  Property  Taxes  According 
to  Levying  Jurisclic tion  .and  Purpose 

In  most  of  the  16  counties  for  which  data  were  secured,   the  State 
as  compared  .with  the  county  and  minor  subdivisions,   levied  a  relatively 
smail  proportion  of  the  property  tax.     The  'State  tax  in  Montgomery  County, 
Alabama,  was  ever  a  third  of  the  total,  as  shown  in  Table  6,  while  in 
Franklin  County,  Ohio,  it  was  as  low  as  5.5  per  cent  of  the  total.  In 
Pennsylvania  and  "California  no  real  estate  tax  was  levied  by  the  State. 
The  proportion  of  property  taxes  levied  by  the  county  government  ranged 
from  18  to  79  per  cent,  and  by  townships  and  local  districts,  not  including 
incorporated  places,  from  11  to  82  per  cent. 

The  varying  proportions  of  the  total,  tax  levied  by  the  county  or 
minor  subdivisions  of  the  county  merely  reflect  differences  in  method  of 
cor due  ting  county  and  local  affairs.     If  there  is  a  high  degree  of  central- 
ization in  the  county  as  regards  .school  and  road  finance,  as,  for  example, 
in  Montgomery  County,  Alabama,^  a  large  proportion  of  local  taxes  will 
be  levied  by  the  county  rather  than  by  local  districts.     If  the  opposite  of 
this  prevails  as  in  Chester  County,  Pennsylvania,  most  of  the  tax  may  be 
levied  by  townships  and  local  districts.     Variation  in  the  proportion  lev- 
ied by  the  State  is  partly  explained  in  the  same  way,  although  the  State's 
part  is  affected  more  by  revenues  from  sources  other  than  the  property  tax. 

Analysis  of  the  use  made ' of  the  tax  dollar  can  be  shown  accurately 
only  where  statistics  of  expenditures  are  available.     In  the  absence  of 
sucn  data  tax  levies  indicate  in  a  general  way  the  major  purposes  of  taxa- 
tion,    of  these  only  two  classes,  school  and  road,  could  be  separated  with 
a  reasonable  degree  of  exactness.     In  14  of  the  16  counties,  over  a  third 
of  all  property  taxes  was  levied  for  schools,  and  in  3  of  these  counties 
over  half  of  the  total  was  for  schools.     Only  in  the  Pennsylvania  and 
Mississippi  Counties  was  as  rnuch  as  a  third  of  property  taxes  levied  for 
road  purposes,  and  the  road  tax  was  more  than  the  school  tax  only  in  the 
Mississippi  County.    Revenues  obtained  from  other  sources,  of  course,  have 
some  effect  on  the  proportion  of  ths  road  tax  shown  here.     It  has  not  been 
possio^e  to  show  trustworthy  comparis-:.i  of  taxes  used  for  general  and 
miscellaneous  expenses,  inasmuch  as  srjie  States  make  specified  levies  for 
ceroain  expenses,  while  others  appropriate  revenues  from  the  general  fund 
for  such  expenses.     Moreover,  soiue  elasticity  in  the  use  of  the  general 
fund  with  respect  to  education  and'  highways  is  allowed  in  some  States. 

As  a  rule,  most  of  the  State  property  tax,  where  State  taxes  were 
levied  at  all,  was  for  general  ei.pjnr.e,  although  in  3  of  the  counties  about 
half  of  the  state  levy  was  for  schools  ox  one  kind  or  another.     The  general 


!?/  local  school  districts  in  this  county,  und^r  an  enabling  Act,  have 
been  consolidated  into  a  county-wide  district  with  u.nif o:  m  tax  rate  for 
school  purposes.     Local  road  taxes  are  also  levied  uniformly  over  the 
county. 


-  15  - 


Table  7.     Distribution  as  to  Purpose  for  which 
Froperty  Taxes  are.  Levied. 


State  ; 

Poad  : 

and  : 

Education  , 

and  : 

All  ■ 

.'County 

Bridge 

Other 

Pennsylvania  -  Chester 

39.4 

42.3  : 

18.3 

Ohio  -  Franklin 

;  34.0 

:         19.8  : 

46.2 

Indiana  -  Tipton 

:  57.2 

:  22.8 

20.0 

Michigan  -  Lenawee 

:  24.6 

27.2  : 

48.2 

South  Dakota  -  Moody 

34.3 

:  15.0 

50.7 

Iowa  -  Union 

:        38 . 9 

25.5  : 

35.6 

-  Story 

49.9 

:  19.3 

30.8 

Nebraska  -  Wayne 

45  8 

30  0 

:  24.2 

Alabama  -  Montgomery 

:  35.3 

:          14 . 7 

50.0 

Mississippi  -  Tunica 

:  7.4 

:  35.3 

:  57.3 

Tennessee  -  Rutherford 

:  52.0 

:  15.1 

32.9 

Arkansas  -  St.  Francis 

43.6 

:  32.7 

:  23.7 

Colorado  -  Delta 

:  49.8 

:         21. 5 

:  28.7 

-  Otero 

59.9 

:  1SF.8 

:  20.3 

Idaho  -  Madison 

46.  7 

:  13.6 

:  39.7 

California  -  Merced 

:  ■      34 . 5 

:  22.5 

43.0 

expense  item  is  usually  more  important  in  county  levies,  although  in  a 
few  counties,  according  to  the  system  which  happens  to  prevail,  school  and 
road  taxes  may  constitute  a  large  part.     Township  ana  special  district 
taxes  are  usually  for  school,  road  and  miscellaneous  expense  of  a  local 
character.^/    Over  80  per  cent  of  the  school  tax  in  the  counties  studied 
in  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,   Indiana,   Iowa,  Nebraska,  Tennessee,  and  Colorado 
was  levied  by  townships  and  local  districts.     In  Michigan,  South  Dakota 
and  Mississippi  the  school  tax  was  levied  primarily  by  the  county.  In 
Idaho  and  California  counties  this  levy  was  about -equally  divided  between 
county  and  local  districts,  while  in  Montgomery  County,  Alabama,   it  was 
about  equally  divided  between  State  and  county.     In  St.  Francis  County, 
Arkansas,  the  State  levied  about  a  third  and  local  districts  about  two- 
thirds  of  school  taxes. 

In  the  levy  of  property  taxes  for  highway  purposes  the  county  plays 
the  leading  role.     in  Ohio,   Indiana,  Michigan,   South  Dakota,   Iowa,  Alabama, 
Mississippi,   Colorado  and  California,  approximately  two-thirds  or  more  of 
the  road  tax  was  levied  by  the  county.     In  these  counties  the  remainder  of 
the  tax  was  levied  by  townships  and  local  districts,  except  in  Ohio,  Indiana, 
and  Colorado,  where  the  State  levied  a  small  proportion  of  the  tax.     In  the 
Pennsylvania  and  Arkansas  counties  local  districts  levied  most  of  the  tax. 
In  wayne  County,  Nebraska,  the  county  levied  60  per  cent  of  road  taxes,  and 


13/  In  a  few  cases  it  has  not  been  possible  to  separate  from  other  taxes 
the  road  tax  levied  by  townships  but  the  effect  on  the  final  result  is  un- 
important. 


-  16  - 


the  State  and  local  districts  shared  the  remainder  equally.     In  Madison 
County,  Idaho,  the  State  levied  over  half  of  the  tax  and  the  county  the 
remainder.     In  Eutheri'ord  County,  Tennessee,  the  State  levied  about  a  third 
and  local  districts  two- thirds. 

Practically  every  conceivable  combination  of  State,  county  and  local 
tax  levies  is  thus  shown  for  the  few  counties  considered.     Analysis  of  the 
general  property  tax  in  this  respect,  however,  fails  to  give  a  complete 
picture  of  State  and  local  fiscal  systems.    :Some  of  the  revenues  for  school 
and  especially  for  highway  purposes  is  obtained  from  sources  other  than  the 
general  property  tax.    Accurate  Analyses  of  'the  sources  of  all  revenues,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  expenditure  of  such  revenues,  on  the  other,  would  have 
more  significance.     While  this  has  not  been  done  in  the  present  study,  the 
system  of  distribution  of  tax  revenues  is  known  to  have  a  direct  bearing  on 
the  problem  of  farm  real  estate  taxation. 

The  general  property  tax  'is  the  principal  reliance  of  State  and 
local  governments,  as  shown  in  'Table  1  of  the  Appendix,  but  considerable 
revenues  are  obtained  for  State  purposes  from  other  sources.     The  amount 
and  the  use  made  of  such  special  revenues  will  determine  in  a  measure  the 
relative  amount  'of  taxes  paid  on  real  estate".     For  instance,  in  view  of  the 
present  demand  for  educational  and  highway  services  and  facilities,  the 
State  that  shifts  the  responsibility  of  financing  these  special  functions 
of  government  to-  the  county  or  local  districts  may  expect  heavy  real  estate 
taxation.     This  is  true  for  the  reasons  that  local  taxation  in  rural  dis- 
tricts means  general  property  taxation,  and  that  general  property  taxation 
always  degenerates,  essentially  into  a  tax  on  real  estate.     Distribution  of 
revenues, ,  therefore,  is  an  important  part  of  the  problem. 

What  is  the  relation  of  State  to  local  expenditures?    Certainly,  the 
State's  obligation  goes,  further  than- merely  fixing  certain  standards  for  the 
local  government  to  follow  without  giving''  any  financial  support  to  the 
maintenance  of  such  standards.     The  State  has:  a  direct  financial  obligation 
to  the  locality  in  maintaining  those  services  and  facilities  having  general, 
as  distinguished  from  local,  benefits.    Many  States  have  undoubtedly  shirked 
this  responsibility,  in  part  at  least,  as  regards  public  education  and  high- 
ways.    The  direct  result  has  been  heavier  taxation  of  farm  real  estate. 
Professor  John  A.  Hobson,  dealing  with  the  same  problem  in  England,  says: 
It  is  equally  clear  that,  if  the  State  is  to  require  conformity  to  a  na- 
tional standard  of  efficiency  on  the  nart  of  local  administrators,  it  must 
be  prepared  to  assist  in  the  finance." 14/ 

Some  have  erroneously  believed  that  a  reduction  in  State  revenues 
will  mean  a  reduction  in  their  tax  bill.     On  the  contrary,  a  reduction  in 
State  revenues  may  have,  the  opposite  effect  on  certain  groups  of  taxpayers, 
especially  farmers,  unless  such  reduction  is  merely  for  the  purpose  of  cur- 
tailing the  State's  administrative  expense,     where  the  State  withholds  its 
support  from  public  education,  highways,  and  like  functions,  in  so  far  as 
such  services  have  general  rather  than  local  importance,  the  localities 

14/  Hobson,  John  A.  ,   Taxation  in  the  New  State,  p.  241. 


must  take  up  the  burden  where  the  State  leaves  it,  with  resulting  higher 
local  .taxation-.  .•  •  -    *  -  rf  .  : 

While  no  final  conclusions  may  "be  drawn  cn  the"  basis  of  limited  data, 
certain  facts  in  the  present  report  appear  significant.     A  large  percentage 
of  farm  rents  in  many  counties  was  paid  out  in  taxes  in  1919,  when  rents 
were  higher  "and  taxes  lower  than  they -are  at  present.     There  is  reason  to 
believe,  in  fact,  that  since  1919,  taxes' have  absorbed  all  the  income  from 
rent  on  many  of  the  less  favored  farms.    Excessive  farm  real  estate  taxation 
results  from  the  attempt  to  apply  sale'  value  as  a  uniform  measure  of  the 
tax  to  classes  of  property  yielding- differ ing  rates  of  return  and  varying 
in  the  difficulty  with  which  they  are  reached  under  general  property  tax 
methods.     The  solution  of  this  part  of  the  problem  may  finally  be  found  in 
the  assessment  of  certain  rather  than- uncertain  values,  and  in  the  measure- 
ment of  the  tax  more  nearly  than  it  is  now  according  to  earning  capacity. 
The  situation  would  further  -be  remedied  by  ra.ising  more  revenues  from 
sources  that"  are  now  yielding'  a  smaller  tax  return  than  they  might  for  dis- 
tribution in  such  a  way  as  to- relieve  the  present  excessive  local  tax  bur- 
den.    A  degree  of  retrenchment  in  public  expenditures  along  some  lines  is 
doubtless  advisable,  but  no  permanent  measure  of  relief  for  farmers  is  to 
be  expected  without  thorough  readjustment  in  State  and  local  fiscal  methods. 


_  18  _ 


APPENDIX 


•Taole  1.     General  property  taxes,  percentage  of  total  tax  revenues,  if 
by  states  and  minor,  civil  divisions,  1922 
(Total's  expressed  in  thousands  of  dollars")  - 


:     Total  taxes 

: .  General 

: (not  including 

:  General 

:  property  tax, 

Civil  Divisions 

"  "^TIPP  i      1    PT^r^'S  — 
e       Kj  ' — ■  X.  C_  J  J-     C    o  o  \^  o  vJ 

■        or  one1"  ty 

:  per  cent  of 

:  ment) 

:  "  total 

:  Dollars 

:  Dollars 

:      per  cent 

Alabama 

:  .  29,229 

:  22,706 

:  77.7 

State 

:           10 , 305 

•             6 , 633 

: '  64.4 

Counties  • 

:   •■  12,123 

:  11,427 

:     ..  94.3 

^.     w  ii  o  •  l  a.         cx  xi\A.     U  X  Z>  \j  x            U     t~*  1 

Incorporated  towns  and _ci tie s. 

:  6,801 

:  4,645 

:          68 . 3 

Arizona 

:           19 , 692 

;            18 , b58 

:        '  94 . 2 

State 

6,315 

:  5,680 

:  89.9 

Courties 

:  6,626 

:  6,451 

:  97.4 

_u oil i p  euiu  ijistricx 

:  4,774 

:  4,665 

:          97 . 7 

Incorporated  tov/ns  and  cities 

:_  1,977 

:             1,762  , 

:         89. 1 

Arkansas 

:     '  20,471 

:  16,713 

:  81.7 

State 

:  6,444 

:  4,686 

:  72.7 

Counties 

:  5,717 

:  4,433 

:          77 .  5 

:  6,^80 

:  6,280 

:        100 . 0 

Incorporated  towns_and  cities 

2,030 

:  1,319 

:  65.0 

Calif  ornia 

:  207,372 

r  157,50^ 

:  76.0 

State 

:  43,599 

5 

5  .01 

Counties 

:  64,133 

:  63,049 

:  93.3 

Town snip  and  District 

•                     u</,  XJ.O 

7C  IIP 

1           — u\J  .  U 

 Incorporated  towns  ^apd  cities_ 

60 , 422 

55. 341 

:  91.6 

Colorado 

:           46,016  : 

42,550  : 

92.  5 

State 

8,955  : 

6  ,  575  : 

73.4 

Counties  . 

12 . 305  : 

11,794  : 

95.8 

Towns-iip  and  District  : 

15/J64  : 

15, 964  : 

100 . 0 

Incorporated  towns  and  rit.ipc 

8,792  : 

8,217  : 

93.  5 

Connecticut  ; 

63,435  : 

46,610  : 

73.  5 

State  . 

16 , 508  : 

2,289  : 

13.9 

Counties  : 

1,152  : 

915  : 

79.4 

Township  and  district  : 

4 , 016 

3,550  : 

90.  9 

Incoroorated  towns  and  cities: 

41,759  : 

33.756  : 

95.2 

Table  1.  General  property  taxes,  percentage  cf  total  tax  revenues,  "by- 
states  and  minor  civil  divisions,  1922.  (continued) 


Total  taxes 

:  Ceneral 

(not  including 

:  General 

property  tax. 

Civil  Divisions 

special  assess- 

: property 

:  per  cent  of 

ment  } 

:         taxe s 

total 

Delaware 

8,005  . 

:           4,478  : 

55.9 

S  tate 

'  .  3*919 

:  505 

:..  12.9 

Counties 

1,587 

:  1,671 

:    ■  99.1 

Township  and  District  2/  : 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities 

2,399 

:            2 , 302 

:         96 . 0 

Tlorida 

34,265  . 

:  30,155 

:  88.0 

State 

:          .8,588  . 

:  5,417 

:  63.1 

JLL.  i<Xo  S 

12,261 

:          12.,  051 

:  98.3 

Township  and 

District 

:        ,  .5,011    .  . 

:  .  .  5,011 

:  100.0 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

c  ities 

8,425 

7,677 

:  91.1 

Georgia 

41,537 

34 , 362 

:         82. 7 

State 

■10,869 

:  6,342 

;  58.4 

flmwi  t  i  p  <5 

:  15,133 

:         14, 731.  : 

97.3 

Township  and 

District 

800    '  . 

:  800 

:        100. C 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities 

14,735 

:          12 . 439 

:  84.8 

Idaho 

18,717 

:  17,233 

:         92 . 1 

State 

:   ..  3,480 

:  2,717 

:         78 . 1 

Counties 

:  7,036 

:  6,422 

:  91.3 

Township  and 

District 

:  .5,961 

:     •,  5,949 

: .  99.8 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities 

:  2,240 

:  2,145 

:  95.8 

Illinois 

:       248,955     ,  • 

:  217,694 

:  87.4 

State 

35,561 

:         13 , 222 

:  37.2 

Counties 

24,505  • 

:         24,257  • 

gq  o 

Township  and 

District 

116, 303 

:  115,222 

:  99.9 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities  : 

72,586 

:  63;9S3 

83.1 

Indiana 

121,356 

:  113,467 

•            on  c 

State 

:  18,478 

:  12,420 

67.2 

Counties 

32 , 323 

:          31, $69 

98.9 

Township  and 

District 

49;,  818      :  : 

:        .48,370  • 

:  98.3 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities  . 

20,737 

20,108 

37.0 

-.  20  - 


Table  1.  General  property  taxes,  percentage  of  total  tax  revenues,  "by 
states  and  minor  civil  divisions,  1922.  (continued) 


:     Total  taxes 

:  General 

:  (not  including 

:  General 

property  tax, 

Civil  Divisions 

^necial  a^^e^s  — 

■nronertv  < 

per  cent 

• 

rrent) 

tazes 

of  total 

Dollars 

Do liars 

Per  ce&1» 

Iowa 

:          111, 343  : 

96,601 

86.8 

State 

21, 9S3  ' 

8 , 916 

40.  6 

Count res 

:           23 ,  876 

23  150 

:         97. 0 

Townsh.it)  and:  T)i  <?tn"  nt 

qq  c, 

Incorporated  towns  and 

cities 

15,237 

:            14 ,  534 

:  95.4 

Kansas 

71,123  ■' 

:  65,961 

:  92.7 

State 

R  639  : 

:         76. 9 

Countie  s 

18 , 104  • 

:  16,265 

89.8 

ToWn^hin  anfl    T)i  c;  f-r  i  r  + 

oio  ,  r  Oo 

97  9 

Incorporated  towns  and 

cities 

11,542 

:  11,004 

:          94. 5 

Kentucky 

!  46,609 

;  39,686 

85.1 

lo, OfO 

±U , OOU 

Count i  as 

9   7P.7  '  . 
-j ,  (Of  - 

q   OP  9 

1U  "<  ii  till  XjJ    clilU.  JJiSLriCl/ 

.           ■    b,  bOU  * 

:  y,buu 

;         ±uu. M 

Incorporated-  towns  and 

cities 

11,366  • 

10 , 347 

87.2 

Louisiana 

51,023  • 

:  43,092 

84 .  5 

State 

16,701  • 

10,580 

:  63.3 

Parishes 

■    10,377  . 

10, 180 

;           98.  1 

"YiTirn c;hi "n  and   T)i  ^tri 

p  i  np 

7  P76 

;           97.  1 

Incorporated  towns  and 

cities 

15,337  • 

14  ,455 

91.3 

Maine 

:  27,925 

:  21,511 

:  77.0 

State 

9, 170  ' 

.              3 , 670 

:  40-0 

Countie  s 

:             1,056  :  : 

1,056 

100.  0 

Township  and  Tli  qtri  rt 

6  621 

6,  324 

:         95. 5 

Incorporated-  towns  and 

cities 

11,078 

10,461 

Maryland 

:  45,763 

:  36,293 

79.3 

State 

t            12,442  ' 

4,739 

38. 1 

Counties 

:             8,941  • 

8 , 642 

96.  7 

Township  and-  District 

$$|       ii  . 

9 

81.  8 

Incorporated-  towns  and 

ci  ties 

:  24,369 

22,903 

94.0 

-  21  - 


Table  1.     General  property  taxes,  percentage  of  total  tax  revenues,  by 
states  and  minor  civil  divisions,  1922.   (continued)  m 


Total  taxes 

General 

.(not  including. 

General  ; 

property  tax, 

Civil 

Divisions 

special  assesSr- 

property  : 

per  cent 

me'.:1 1 ) 

of  total 

Dollars 

Dollars  : 

Per  cent 

Massachusetts 

:           203, 112  • 

155,222 

74.2 

State 

:             38,098  ' 

:  12,000 

31.  5 

Counties 

:               5,718  • 

5, 621 

98.3 

Township  and  District  ' 

..    1 63   . ! 

153 

93.9 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities 

:  165,133 

137,448 

83.2 

Michigan 

:  186,672 

133,271 

87.' 5 

State 

•              45.  337 

;            28 , 362 

61.7 

Counties 

23.289  1 

23, 363 

;  81.8 

Township  and  District 

r         .    46,23 7 

4.6,213 

:  100.0 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities 

:  65.169 

64 , "33 

99.3 

Minnesota 

:  121,241 

100,654 

:  83.0 

State 

:  29,635 

:  3.0,282 

•  34.7 

Counties 

.  .21,993 

i  21,804 

:  99.1 

Township  and 

Di  strict 

;             33 , 565 

33,361 

100.0 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities 

'  .36,043 

35',  C07 

:  97.1 

Mississippi 

35,725 

:•  30,713 

!  86.0 

State 

:.  9,080 

:■  6,430 

•          71. 5 

Counties 

8,876 

:  8,255 

33.0 

Township  and 

District 

:  11,166 

9,863 

-  88.4 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities 

:               6 , 603  ■ 

•  6,033 

:  32.4 

Missouri 

95,025 

73,077 

:  83.2 

State 

:  16,460 

4,971 

:  30.2 

Counties 

:  -       .  16,364 

16,325 

33.8 

Township  and 

District 

:  .  34,090 

.  :  33,301 

i  .  99.4 

Incorpo rated 

towns  and 

cities 

:  •  28,111 

23,380 

:          84. 9 

Montana 

:  .  24,253 

.  '  22,067 

:  91.0 

State 

:  •            3,416  j 

2,054 

i          60. 1 

Counties 

8,922 

:  3,454. 

94.8 

Township  and 

District 

:  8,333 

.  '  8,876 

:  98.8 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities 

:  2,932 

2,683 

91.  5 

-  22  - 


General  property  taxes,  percentage  of  total  tax  revenues,  "by- 
states  and  minor  civil  divisions,  1922.  (continued) 


:     Total  taxes- 

:  General 

Civil 

: (not  including 

:  General 

:property  tax, 

Divisions 

: special  assess- 

:  property 

:      per  cent 

:  ment) 

:  taxes 

:      of  total 

Nebraska 

:  58,011 

:            54 , 348 

93 . 7 

State 

:  10,577 

:  9,748 

:          92. 2 

Counties 

:  12,089 

.  9,893 

:         81. 8 

ToWnship  and  District 

:  26,775 

:  26,464 

:  98.8 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities 

:  8,570 

8,243 

:  96.2 

Nevada 

:  5,764 

S  241 

.          90 .  9 

State 

:  1,477 

:  1,295 

:  87.7 

Counties 

:              3 , 244 

:            3 , 097 

:'  95.5 

Township  and 

District 

:  406 

:  405 

:  100.0 

_  Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities 

:  637 

:  443 

:  69.5 

New  Hampshire 

:  19,359 

;  14,662 

:  75.7 

State 

:  5,562 

r  3,109 

:  55.9 

Counties 

:  1,086 

:  1,086 

:       100  -  0 

Township  and 

District 

:  3,350 

r            2 ,  510 

:  74.9 

 Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities 

9,361 

7,957 

:  85.0 

New  Jersey 

:  155,904 

:  135,342 

86.  8 

State 

:  36,363 

22,351 

:  61.5 

Counties 

25,021 

24,579 

:  98.2 

Township  and  District 

22,186 

21,734 

98.0 

Incorporated 

town 3  and 

cities 

J.   72  .  334-  .  3 

66,678 

92.2 

Hew  l.Iexico 

11,046 

10  262 

92  9 

State 

3  091 

t-i  ,  DO  f  , 

uc  .  1 

Counties 

6 , 602  j 

6,499  i 

98 .4 

Township  and  District 

601  : 

601  i 

100.0 

 lncprpora  ted 

towns  and 

cities  : 

.'.          .  7ff3  • 

625  : 

83.  1 

New  York 

595,881  : 

463,851  : 

77.8 

State 

117,057 

23,971  : 

20.  5 

Counti  es 

30 , 553  : 

29,109  : 

95.3 

.Township  and  District 

43,437  : 

40,254  : 

92.  7 

Incorporated  towns  snrt 

cities  : 

404,834  : 

370,517  : 

91.  5 

-■  23  - 


Taole  1.     General  property  taxes,  percentage  of  total  tax  revenues,  "fa- 
states  and  minor  civil  di'/isions.  1922.  (continued) 


Total  taxes 

General 

(not  including 

:        General     .  : 

property 

'  tax, 

Civil 

Divisions 

special  assess- 

property : 

per  ce 

nt 

es  nt  j 

taxes  : 

of  total 

Dealers'  : 

"Dollars 

Per  cent 

ijorun  oaronna- 

AC    1 C O . 

75. 

4 

,               n    o  c  = 

1<& . 

rp 

Count ie  s 

<d0  ,  (■:  £  ■ 

I      .      .lb,  c'JO       • .:' 

O  F. 

E 
D 

Township  end 

District 

5,106' 

t     '"  -  5,010 

1 

 Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities 

10,391 ; 

9 , 172 

O  C3 
CO  . 

IJorth  rjpltotp 

i29  3RR  ' 

93. 

6 

State 

4,847  " 

;                D  J. 

A 
*x 

w  -  J  LA.11  w  i  o  o 

O  ,  1  JO 

;              ~>o  . 

Township  and 

District 

' .    IE , S06  • 

:          15, 575 

;               so  . 

o 

Incor-p  orated 

ptpwns_and 

cities  : 

j. ,  9  ;j2 

:  1,911 

OO 

V  (  . 

Q 

Ohio 

t-1     —  ,  \J  X  c7  ., 

pio  era 

:   •  87. 

5 

State 

•            "!7   07  £ 

41 . 

c 
o 

C  o un  ties 

:           ru,  -^o 

OP? 

: .        9  7 . 

6 

Township  and 

bis  trict. 

:?u,.S0l  : 

:  75^474 

99. 

8 

Incorporated 

.towns-  and 

cities 

52,280 

:  55,990 

:  91. 

5 

Oklahoma 

  Do  ,  O  f± 

,                  'it  ,  OJ.3 

:  83. 

5 

State 

C,  riD 

:           i ,  i4o 

:  .17. 

1 

r  Io.oicjd 

:  11,,594 

;  87. 

0 

Township  and 

District 

23,329 

:    ,  22,733 

; .  97. 

5 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities;:  

:  9,704 

:  8,841 

:  91. 

1 

a  n      /i  /"N't 

•  4_L,40<d 

35,405 

:  85. 

5 

1c ,  y±0 

:  7,303 

:  55. 

6 

Counti  e  s 

12 , 147 

:          12 , 0  59 

:  99. 

3 

Township  and 

District 

^i.'w,'.;  .  9,458  •'• 

:  9,453 

100. 

0 

Incorporated 

towns  and 

cities  •  : 

6,887 

:  6,585 

95. 

6 

Pennsylvania 

'  300,082 

:  224,975 

75. 

0 

State  4/ 

67, 189 

Counties 

32,925 

:  29,985 

on 

1 

Township  and 

District 

112,610 

:  111,783 

99. 

4 

Incorporated 

to'.vns  and 

cities  : 

87,358 

:          83,202  \ 

95. 

2 

-  24  - 


Table  1.     General  property 'taxes ,  percentage  of  total  tax  revenues,  by 
states  and  ninor  civil  divisions,  1922.  (continued) 


Pp-pprn  1 

UCiiCl  C.1 

^  UU  0    J.  Ub  J  U'_t  J-IIg. 

Civil  Divisions 

.•special  pssess- 

:  property 

per  cent 

tnent) 

:  taxes 

of  total 

:  Dollars 

:  Dollars 

:    Per  cent 

Rhode  Island . 

P4  no  i 

76  7 

State 

:  6,438 

1  1R0 

.          18. 3 

Counties  3/ 

Township  and  District  2j 

_  Jn.cqrporate,d _  town_s_and  cities 

:  17,563 

:  17,233 

:          98. 1 

South  Carolina 

23  420 

.          83. 5 

State 

6  9°9 

:          70 .  6 

Count ie  s 

,               /1  con 

:  0^.0 

Township  and  District 

:  6,27? 

:  5,968 

:          95. 1 

Incorporated  towns  and  cities 

:             4 ,  997 

:             4 , 027 

:  80.6 

South  Dakota  . 

•                 O  J-  ,  Ot±  c> 

:           ou ,0(1 

qq  a 

State 

:  0,100 

■              RPi  R 
;            o(j  .  o 

Counti  p  r 

.                 a,  44c 

OA  A 

:         y4 . 4 

Township  and  District 

:  14,818 

:  14,744 

:  99.5 

Incorporated  towns  and  cities 

:  4,296' 

:             4 , 198 

97.  7 

Tonne  s  see 

:  35,202 

be .  0 

State 

:  I0,l<3l- 

:             6 , 10  6 

:  60-3 

:     v  19,563" 

:  17,485 

89.  4 

Township  and  District 

:  431 

:  426 

98.8 

j-i^uj  iju.  c3  bv^u.  oo<<iis  ana.  ci  ;,ip.s 

  12,797 

11, Ibo 

o7 . 4 

Texas  • 

luo , y  cu  . 

:            94 , oyo 

yb .  0 

State 

7n  Pin 

1  O    PS/  7 

DO.  1 

Counties  ; 

27,263  • 

24,295  • 

89.1 

Township  and  District 

21,492 

21,492  : 

100.0 

Incorporated  towns  and  cities 

30,005 

29,425  : 

98. 1 

Utah                                            ..  . 

,  17,034  : 

15,398  : 

90.4 

State                                       .  j 

5,067  j 

3,767  : 

74.3 

Counties        .  : 

-  .    .  -3,064  :  : 

3,028  : 

98.2 

Township  and  District  : 

5,4-16  : 

5,416  : 

100.0 

Ircorporated'  towns  and  cities 

3,467  : 

3, 187  : 

91.  9 

-  25  - 


Table  1.     General  property  taxes,  percentage  of  total  tax  revenues,  by 
states  and  minor  civil  divisions.,   1922.  (continued) 


■  [ 

■            j_\J  uo.  J-       uGwlw  O 



General 

■nrnnprtv  tax 

Civil  Divisions 

:  special  assess* 

:        property  . 

:    per  cent 

:  merit) 

:          taxe  s 

:    of  total 

:  Dollars 

:  Dollars 

:     per  cent 

Vermont 

:  12,052 

:             9 , 07  5 

:          75. 3 

State 

:  3,946 

:  1,608 

:         40. 8 

Countie s 

:  55 

.  55 

:        100 . 0 

Township  and  District 

:  4,150 

:  3,810 

:  91.8 

Incorporated  towns  and  cities 

:  3,901 

3 . 602 

92.  3 

Virginia  .- 

:  46,618 

32.093 

:          68. 8 

State 

:  18,288 

:  6,905 

:          37. 8 

Counties 

12  1  7D 

11    7  7^ 

>           96  7 

Township  and  District  Zj 

..Incorporated  towns  and  cities 

16,160 

13,415 

:  -83.0 

Washington 

•                     UO  ,  l  t u 

fin  iPA 

•           87  5 

State 

1  7  QD7 

X  f  ,  O  O  r 

in  qi  r 

XU , JlJ 

si  n 

Dl.v 

Counties  . 

x  r  ,  Jo  1 

;            Id,  too 

;          y<& .  D 

Township  and  District  j 

21,202 

21,202 

100.0 

Incorporated  towns  and  cities 

12,626 

:  12,286 

97.3 

West  Virginia  • 

ft<i ,  /s  y*± 

•7  C  ACQ 

od .  y 

State 

y ,  o'JU 

oi .  y 

Counti  e , 

12 , 025 

11,710  : 

97 . 4 

Township  and  District  < 

16,079  : 

16,079 

100.0 

Incorporated  towns  and  cities  • 

4 ,  590 

4,205  : 

91.6 

Wisconsin 

X<o*± ,  CrAXJ 

1  C\P,    OA P 

xuo  ,  c-i  o  ; 

P1^  A 

State. 

26  1 70 

1  R  QQ1 

61  1 

w  X  •  X 

Counties  . 

23,299 

21 , 833  ; 

93.7 

Township  and  District 

33,433 

32 , 630  : 

97.  6 

Incorporated  towns  and  cities  ■ 

41,438 

35,794  : 

86.4 

Wyoming  . 

8,488  ; 

7,438  : 

87.6 

State 

2,248  ; 

1,653  : 

73.  8 

Counties  ; 

2,544  : 

2,286  ; 

89.  8 

Township  and  District  : 

2 , 354  : 

2,306  : 

97.  5 

Incorporated  towns  and  cities 

1,332 

1,183  : 

89.2 

-  26  - 


Table  1,     General  property  taxes,  percentage  of  total  tax  revenues,  by 
states  and  minor  civil  divisions,   1922.  (continued) 


Civil  Divisions 
(Not  including  District  of 
Columbia)  j 

:     To  ta 1  taxe  s 
•(not  including 
special  assess- 
ment") 

:  General 
property 
taxes 

General 
property  tax, 
per  cent 
of  total 

Dollars 

:  Dollars 

Per  cent 

all  States 

4,002,698    :  : 

3,321,484 

83.0 

States 

858,142  • 

348,293 

:  40.6 

Counties 

:  725,525 

687,286 

94.  7 

Township  and  District 

953,876 

941,142 

98.7 

Incorporated  towns  and  cities  : 

1,465,155 

1,344,763 

91.  S 

If  As  reported  by  the  Census  of  1922,  but  not  including  special  assessments. 
2/  No  township  or  district  tax  levies.  ; 


3/  No  county  tax  levies. 

/kj  "To  state  general  property  tax  levies. 


-  27  - 


Table  2.     Comparison  of  farms  studied  with  all  farms  in  the  county,  l/ 


State 
and 
County 


:    Average  acreage 
:        per  farm 

• 

:  Improved  acreage  _ 

:    Average  census 
.■valuation  of  land 
:  and  improvements 
:         per  acre 

:  Proportion  of 
:  value  of  real 
:     estate  in 
:     impr  ov  ement  s 

: Selected 
:  Farms 

:All  farms 

: Selected 

<  pglTDS 

:A11  farms 

.•Selected 
•'  farms 

.■All  farms 

: Selected 
:  Farms 

:  All 
:  Farms 

:  Acres 

:  Acres 

:Per  cent 

:Per  cent 

:  Do liars 

:  Dollars 

:Per  cent 

:Per  cent 

:  153.1 
:  -   7  9".  0 

:  161.5 
:        7 1".  2 

:  57.8 
:     87. 8 

:  56.8 
91  6 

29 

:  35 
142 

.  48.8 
29  6 

:  52.2 
^7  R 

:      84. 7 

77  0 

:  78.4 

s  1  81  1 

.             \J  X  .  X 

[  •             X  J_  \J 

•  12R 

4P  0 

5?  R 

RR  2 

a                    f  O  .  J 

:      OS .  o 

IT  fl 

1        ID  .  O 

:  82.3 

:  85.6 

88.9 

I  89.5.' 

:  239 

:      244 . 

:  10.8 

:  13.4 

:  100.1 

:  135.0 

:  78.0 

:     78.0 ; 

:  128 

:  125 

:  15.0 

:  14.8 

:  83.3 

:  89.9 

:  82.8 

:  '81.0 

:  126 

:  "  121 

:  33.8 

i  31.9 

:  109.0 

s    a  i6.o 

•  72.4 

:".  71.0  :  . 

155 

:      149  . 

:  19.7 

:    22 , 8 

:  141.4 

122 . 2 

:  83.3' 

:     84.4  .  . 

:       137.  ; 

:  :.  155  : 

:  14.8 

•  20.6 

:    230 . 8 

:  245.4 

•  83.4 

:  83.8 

:  206 

:  194 

9.4 

:  9.4 

:  145.4 
:  145.6 

:  3.58.8 
1  £R  1  • 

84. 1 

Rfi  7 

:    85 . 9  • 

RO  Q 

166 

:  170 
^i  n 

11.3 

7  ^ 

:  12.6 
9  7 

:  184.3 

192.  8 

97  2 

243 

247 

;       7. 5 

9  3 

:  282.8 

287.6  : 

50.  8 

54 . 4  ; 

57 

59 

11. 0 

12 . 8 

:     134.1  : 

83.3  : 

34.8  : 

40.4  ! 

40  : 

55  : 

15.6  : 

23.5 

:      65.2  ; 

71.7  : 

45. 9  : 

45.5  : 

48  . 

62 

16.8  . 

22.2 

:      97.6  : 

84.5  : 

64. 1  : 

65.0  : 

42  : 

54  ; 

16.8  • 

17.5 

:      41.2  . 

64.6  : 

81.8  : 

71.8  : 

51  : 

42  : 

18.4  : 

20.8 

:      37.3  : 

33.3  : 

87.3  : 

71.3  : 

134  : 

158  : 

14.6  : 

13.4 

:      79.9  : 

68.8  : 

60 . 0 

61.4  j 

59  : 

74  : 

20.4  : 

22 .  8 

:      36.7  : 

41.5  : 

81.8  : 

70.2  : 

99  • 

81  ; 

14.8  : 

20.1 

New  York 
Delaware 
Niagara 
Pennsylvania 

Chester 
Ohio 

Franklin 
Indiana 
Tipton 
Illinois 
Macoupin 
Michigan 
Lenawee 
•.; "isconsin 

Dane 
Minnesota 

McLeod 
South  Dakota 
Moody 
Iowa 
Union 
Story 
Nebraska 

nayne 
Kansas 
Butler 
Virginia 

So .  Hampton 
No.  Carolina 

Halifax 
Georgia 

Bleckley 
Alabama 

Montgomery 
i..rississippi 

Tunica 
Tennessee 
Rutherford 
Arkansas 
St.  Francis 


-  28  - 


Table  2.     Comparison  of  farms  studied  with  all  farms  in  the  county. 

(Continued) 


Average  census  : 

Proportion  of 

State  : 

valuation  of  land  : 

value  of  real 

and  : 

Average  acreage 

Improved  acreage  : 

and  improvements  . 

estate  in 

County 

.  per, 

~f  arm 

X  CLX  ILL 

per 

acre  ; 

improvements 

Selected 

All  "TrtTm<c' 

■Selected 

All 

farms ■ 

OCXt^V^  uovx 

All   f  flfiTic;  • 

-l  i  XX       X  O  X  LLlfJ  . 

Selected 

All 

Farms- 

Farms 

£  c'  X  Illo 

Parms 

Parms 

Acres 

Acres 

:Per  cent 

x^er 

cent,  : 

T^/-i  1   1  1  T.  P 

I/O  J.  XSH  c> 

UO  X  Xcll  o 

:Per  cent 

Per  cent 

Oklahoma  : 

Payne 

145. 

2  • 

x  D^i .  y 

64. 

3 

62. 

3  . 

OO  . 

t  AO 

\           ■  L±Ct 

15.  7 

17.4 

Colorado 

Delta 

:  69 

3, 

yy .  i> 

:  54. 

7. 

43. 

9 

ry  . 

:       no  , 

15.  0 

16.7 

Otero 

100. 

3. 

:  78. 

9 

28. 

2  • 

lu  f 

.  fin 

13.  6 

12.7 

Utah 

Salt  Lake 

:  42 

7; 

130.1 

76. 

1 

29. 

1 

'  278 

:       84    .  • 

11.8 

16.9 

Idaho 

Ada 

46 

9 

92 . 7 

86. 

6 

64. 

6 

238 

:  142 

11.4 

13.9 

Madison 

:  93 

6 

.     . 234 . 5 

:  94 

3 

71. 

3, 

:      252  . 

:■•    ■  80 

:  3.4 

:  10.5 

Oregon 

"Washington 

:  102 

0.  ' 

.    •    72 . 3 

:  57 

0 

54. 

3 

137  , 

:  153 

12.2 

16.9 

California 

Sacramento 

•  90 

9 

186.  7 

:  93 

8 

71. 

8 

185 : 

:  144 

:  7.6 

•  '9.4 

Merced 

109 

7 

:  394.4 

:  85 

8 

45. 

I  . 

222  t 

78  : . 

9.5 

:  11.0 

Arizona 

_ Maricopa 

83 

:  204.2 

L_  95, 

3 

34. 

8 

:  308 

:"  114 

'4.7 

7.9 

1/  Census  of  1920.  • 


-  29  - 


Table  3.     Net  Cash  Rent,  percentage  of-  Census  Valuation,  Selected  Farms, 

.     19  1  9. 


State           ■  : 
and  : 
County'  : 

: 

Net  Cash.  Rent, 
percentage  of 
census  valua- 
tion (before 
deducting  taxes 

:      ;  State 
:  ■           .  and 
:  County 
) 

:  Net  Cash  fientx 
:  percentage  of 
:  census  valua- 
:  at ion  (before 
: deducting  taxes 

Per 

Cent 

Per 

Cent 

New  York  -  Delaware 

4 

.3 

:  Georgia.  -  Bleckley 

7 

.1 

-  UTiagara 

2 

.5 

;  Alabama  -  Montgomery 

•  4 

.  7 

Pennsylvania  -  Chester 

1 

.6  . 

•  Mississippi  -  Tunica 

10 

.  7 

Grio  -  Prank! in 

3 

.  2 

:  Tennessee  -  Rutherford 

4 

.6 

Indiana  -  Tipton 

3 

.9 

Arkansas  -  St.  Francis 

.1 

Illinois  -  Macoupin 

2 

.8 

:  Oklahoma  -  Payne 

3 

.  5 

Michigan  -  Lenawee 

3 

.5 

:  Colorado  -  Delta 

5 

.1 

\»  is  con  sin  -  Dane 

2 

.6 

:              .   -  Otero 

6 

.7 

Minnesota  -  McLeod 

2 

.6 

:  Utah  -  Salt  Lake 

3 

.5 

South  Dakota  -  Moody 

2 

.3 

:  Idaho  -  Ada 

4 

.2 

Iowa  -  Union 

3 

.2 

Idaho  -  Madison 

4 

.  5 

' -  Story 

2 

.5 

Oregon  r  "Washington 

3 

.2 

Nebraska  -  jfayne 

2 

.  4 

California.  -  Sacramento 

5 

.7 

Kansas  -  Butler 

3 

.0 

r                     -  Merced 

4 

.4 

Virginia  -  Southampton 

4 

.  9 

Arizona  -  Maricopa 

8 

.7 

North  Carolina  -  Halifax  4 

.3 

-  30  - 


Table  4.      Rates  of  Depreciation  and  Repairs,  and  of  Insurance  [~L 
By  Counties,  and  Total  Deduction  per  Acre  from  Gross  Rent. 


:Rate  of  ;Rate  of 

-  Total 

:Rate  ofrRate  of 

:  Total 

•depre- 

: insur- 

de due  - 

:depre- 

•insur- 

■  deduc- 

State 

ciation 

ance  per 

'tion  per 

•  State 

:  c  iation 

:ance  per 

'tion  per 

;and  re- 

:  $100 

.acre  for 

: and  r  e  — 

:  $100 

acre  for 

and 

:pair s 

*  va lua— 

deprecia- 

; and 

•nair 

'.  va  lua— 

deprecia- 

t on 

;  tion  of 

tion    re  — 

•  on 

:  tion  of  : 

tion,  re- 

County 

:build- 

•build- 

na.ir  ^ .  and 

Conn  t  v 

:build- 

:build-  : 

pair  s ,  and 

:  ings . 

:  ing  s . 

■  insurance 

!  infrs . 

:  ings. 

insurance 

Per  Cent 

: Do liars 

Do 1 lar  s 

Per  Cent 

.•Dollars 

Dollar  s 

Hew  York 

'Georgia 

Delaware 

4.0 

.36 

.58 

;  Bleckley 

7.1 

1.24 

.56 

Niagara 

4.0 

.36 

1.39 

:  Alabama 

Pennsylvania 

:  Montgomery 

5.8 

1.62 

.65 

Chester 

4.0 

.40 

2.39 

:Mi  ssi  ssippi 

Ohio 

:  Tunica 

7.9 

1.62 

1.77 

Franklin 

3.3 

.25 

.53 

: Tennessee 

Indiana 

:  Rutherford 

5.4 

.67 

.82, 

Tipton 

3.0 

.33 

'•■    .  83 

: Arkansas 

Illinois 

:  St.  prancis 

6.5 

.97 

1.06 

Macoupin 

3.0 

.37 

.63 

: Oklahoma 

Michigan 

:  Payne 

6.0 

.87 

.39 

Lenawee 

3.7 

.43 

1.71 

: Co lor ado 

.Wisconsin 

:  Delta 

7.2 

.50 

.89 

Dane 

3.6 

.23 

1.15 

:  Otero 

7.2 

.  50 

1.93 

Minnesota 

:Utah 

McLeod 

4.0 

.35 

.86 

■  Salt  Lake 

4.4 

.  57 

1.  58 

South  Dakota 

Idaho 

Moody 

4.0 

.25 

.  81 

•  Ada 

4.6 

.  69 

1.  39 

Iowa 

Ti/c  d  1  COT1 

4  6 

.  69 

.44 

Union 

4.9* 

.30 

95 

Story 

5.1 

.30 

1.18 

Washington 

4.7 

.52 

.86 

Nebraska 

California 

to  ayne 

5.0 

.24 

.95  : 

Sacramento 

4.5 

.55 

.70 

Kansas 

Lerced 

4.5 

.55 

1.03 

Butler 

5.0 

.35 

.33  . 

Arizona 

Virginia 

Maricopa 

4.4 

1.37 

.78 

Southampton 

4.5 

.73 

.31  : 

North  Carolina 

Halifax 

4.5 

.70 

.51  , 

/ 1    In  States  where  both  old  line  and  farmers 1  mutual  insurance  companies  operate, 
an  everage  of  the  rates  used  was  derived  by  taking  into  account  the  percentage  of 
business  done  by  each  in  the  State.     lor  example,  if  in  a  State  three-fourths  of 
farmers'  insurance  is  carried  by  farmers'  mutual  insurance  companies  and  one-fourth 
by  old  line  companies,   the  respective  rates  were  weighted  by  three-fourths  and  one- 
fourth.     In  the  Central  and  Northwestern  States  the  rate  used  7/as  about  the  same  as 
that  of  the  farmers'  mutual s,  while  in  most  Southern  States  the  rate  was  usually  that 
of  the  old  line  companies.     The  cost  of  insurance,  whether  insurance  was  actually 
carried  or  not,  was  computed  for  all  farms  upon  the  Assumption  that  the  rate  for  any 
area  reflects  approximately  the  average  loss  sustained  from  the  usual  hazards  covered 
by  such  insurance. 


-  31  - 


Table  5.     Assessed  valuation  of  farm  real  estate  in  relation  to  Census 

valuation,  1920 


State  and 
County 

Statutory  Provisions,  1921 

:Assossed 
va lua- 
tion 
:  per 
:  acre  2/ 

:  Census 
:  valua- 
tion per 
:  acre 

:Eelation  of 
assessed 
to  census 

■valuation 

§/ 

:  Exemption  of  farm 
:  Teal  estate 

:  Hate  of  assessment 
:  oi  farm  real  es- 
:  ta  te  1/ 

New  York 
Delaware 
Niagara 

:P.eal  property  pur- 
chased "by  pension  mon- 

terit  of  $5,000.  Lim- 
:ite'd  acreage  of  forest 

1  Ipn'd  "nlpnterl  and  tpp1  — 

■  -^-O- 1-±  -_L          J-CLli  \j\s*JL     wll-L     -I.  *^p} 

istered. 

:Pull  value -according 
•to  amount  property 

» VJTi  1*1*1         epl  1     f  nT  "hp- 

:tween  a  willing  sell- 
er and  a  willing 
•  "hn  vp  t* 

W  LL         i  . 

:  Dollar s 

:  17.25 
.  75.73 

:  Dollars 

:  28.57 
:  110.31 



per  cent 

60.4 
:  68.7 

Pen  n s y Ivan i a 
Chester 

'7To  exermti  nn 

73.  83 

:  115.71 

63.8 

Ohio  : 
franklin 

TJo  exemntinn 

True  value,  as  ascer- 
tain pd  "hv  ii  ^na  1  se  11  — 
: ing. price ' for  cash 
:at  voluntary  sale 

:  116.20 

:  194.67 

:  59.7 

Indiana 
Tip ten 

:50;/o  of  mortgaged  value 
•limited  to  $1,000  per 

:At  price  property 
:would  "bring  at  pri- 

:  197.00 

:  238.63 

:  82.6 

Illinois 
Macoupin 

■No  exemption 

lull  value,,  50  per 
cent  of  which  is  tax- 
;  a  o  xe 

:  (20.23) 
:  40.46 

127. 58 

(15.9) 
31.  8 

Michigan 

LcBiivjee 

::To  exemption' 

Cash  value  or  usual 
:selling  price 

:  103.31 

:  126.43 

81 . 7 

Wisconsin 
Dane 

:Land  of  20  to  40  acres 
'settled  as  a  homestead 
and'  devoted  to  agri- 
culture, exempt  for  3 
year  s 

pull  value-  that 
could  he  obtained  at 
•private  sale 

•  115.21 

:  154.95 

:  74.4 

Minnesota  : 
McLeod'  ; 

No  e  xenp  t  i  o  n 

:Pull  value, ^ 33-1/3  pel 
cent  of  which  is  tax- 
ab  le 

'  (34.09) 
:  102.27 

:  136.61  , 

■  (25.0) 
74.  9 

So .  Da  too  ta 
Moody  ' 

Dwelling  houses  occu- 
pied by  owner  exempt 
to  thp  pxfp-nt  nf  *Rnn 
3/ 

Cash  value  -  price  : 
property  is  fairly  : 

vir\  t*  "1*  Vi    "i  vi    r^inriPV      yi    "h  ' 
VYUI   0-1     XXI    XiiUIlt*^  ,      LIU  l>  , 

at  auction  sale 

94.71 

206.39 

45.  9 

Iowa 

Union  : 
Story  : 

.Area  of  roads  adjacent 
to  farms  exempt.  : 

The  value  of  the  mar- 
ket in  the  ordinary 
course  of  trade,  25  : 
per  cent  of .which  is  . 
taxab 1 e  : 

(16.79) 
67.16 

(24.00) 
96.00 

165.83  : 
296.07  . 

(10.1) 
40.5 

(  8.1) 
32.4 

Nebraska-  : 
bayne  : 

Actual  value,  accord-: 
ing  to  the  market  in  . 
the  ordinary  course  ; 
of  trade  : 

147.  86 

243. 31 

60.  8 

-  32  - 


Table  ,5.    Assessed  valuation  of  farm  real  estate  in  relation  to  Census 

valuation,  1920.  (Continued) 


State 

and 
County 

Statutory  Provisions,. 1921 

Assessed j 
valua- 
tion 
.  per 
•  acre 

Census 
valua- 
tion per 
acre 

Relation  of 
assessed 
to  census 
valuation 

■  Exemption  of  farm 
real  estate 

Rate  of  assessment 
of  farm  real  es- 
:  tate. 

Kansas 
Butler 

Kb  exemption 

:True  value  in  money  : 

:  Do liars 
35.09 

Dollars 
:  57.01 

Per  cent 
61.6 

Virginia 
Southamp- 
ton 

No  exemption 

:Tair  market  value' 

7 . 59  ; 

:  39.80 

19.1 

No. Carolina 
Halifax  ■ 

.No  exemption 

:  True  value  in  money  - 
:What  property  would 
: "bring  -when  sold  for 
cash  in  the  usual 
: manner  .■ 

.8.97 

:    47  ."86 

18.7 

Georgia  ■ 
Bleckley 

.No  exemption 

:Pair  market  value , 
: amount  property  would 
: "bring  when  sold  in 
: the  usual  way. 

:  11.10 

:    41 .46 

:  26.8 

Alabama 
Montgomery 

:I\To  exemption  : 

:  "Reasonable  cash  value 
: 60  per  cent  of  which 
:is  taxable 

:  (9.74) 
16.23 

•  50.81 

(19.1) 
:  31.9 

Mississippi 
Tunica 

No  exemption 

:At  price  property 
:wo\xld  "bring  at  a  vol- 
runtary  sale 

:  57.07 

:  133.65 

42.7 

Tennessee' 
Rutherford 

No  exemption 

•Actual  cash  value  - 
. the  price,  that  could 
•he  obtained  where 
: located,  at  a:  private 
: sale .  ■ 

13 . 31 

•  68.66 

19.4 

Arkansas 
St.-  Francis 

3  Ho  exemption 

10.90 

-  99.24 

11.0 

Oklahoma  • 
Payne 

:Ub  exemption.  ; 

:Fair  cash  value  -  es- 
: tima ted  price ■ of  fair 
:and  voluntary ' sale . 

•  21.91  ' 

:  37.56 

58.3 

Colorado  > 
Delta       ,  . 
Otero 

:No  exemption 

:Tuli  cash  value 

43.07 
114.87 

79.02 
187.40 

54.  5 
61 . 3 

Utah 
Salt  Lake 

No  exemption 

lull  cash  value  - 
amount 'at  which  prop-: 
erty  would  be  taken 
in  payment  of  'a  just  : 
•debt  due  from  a  sol-  : 
vent  creditor  : 

148.85  : 

278.13  : 

53.  5 

-  33  - 


Table  5.    Assessed  valuation  of  farm  real  estate  in  relation  to  Census 

valuation,  1920.  (Continued) 


State 
and 
County 

:               Statutory  Provisions,  1921 

:Assessed 
• valua- 
:  tion 
:  per 
■  acre 

:  Census 
:  va.lua- 
•tion  per 
acre 

:Eelationo 
■assessed 
:to  census 
:valuation 

: Exemp  t i  o n  o  f  f  arm 
•  real,  estate 

:  Rate  of  assessment 
:  of  farm  real  es- 
:   te  ts 

Idaho 
Ada 

Madison 

Improvements  not  ex- 
ceeding $200  in  value 

are  exempt.  Special 
:  exemption  up  to  $1,000^ 
iof  property  of  widows 

and.  orphans  and  Union 
: soldiers,  and  sailors, 

when  total  assp^QmpTrh 

does  not  exceed  $5,000' 

:Pull  cash  value 

:  107.22 
:  58.62 

237. 84 
252. 12 

:      45. 1 
23.3 

Oregon 
'washing  too 

No  exemption 

:True  cash  value  at 
voluntary  sale  in  the 
usual  course  of  busi-. 
ne  ss 

.53.01 

:  136.51 

38.8 

California 
Sacramento. 
Merced 

No  exemption  ; 

47.25 
32.20 

184.85 
.221.49 

25.  6 
14.5 

Arizona  ; 
Maricopa 

Property,  of  resident 
widows  not  to  exceed  : 
$1,000  where  total 
assessment  does  not  : 
exceed  $2,000  . 

Pull  cash  value  -  as  ■ 
given  in  payment  of  a: 
just  debt  due  from  ; 
solvent  creditor  : 

128.40  : 

307.75  : 

41.7 

1/  Although  the  legal  requirement  is  practically  the  same  in  most  states,   the  termi- 
nology as  expressed  Toy  different  state  laws  is  used  in  this  table. 

2]  Pigure  in  parentheses  shows  valuation  upon  which  tax  is  "based. 


ZJ  This  provision  has  been  since  repealed. 


-  34  - 


Table  6.      Parm  Real  Estate  Tax,  Percentage  of  Census  Valuation  of  Land 
end  Improvements  of  Selected  JPims,   1S20.  1/ 


:  Census 

:  Tax 

:Tax,  Percentage 

otaT. e  ana.  bounty 

:  valuation 

:  per 

of  Census 

 — — ■  .  ,  

per  acre 

acre 

:  Valuation 

:  Dollars 

:  Dollars 

:      Fer  Cent 

.jew  lorn.  —  Lexav;are 

:  28.57 

:  .     . . .38 

:  1.3 

—  liiagara 

:  110.31 

:            .  85 

o 

:            •  o 

reunify  x  vcixiia  —  u-iesxer 

:          115. 71 

I            1 . 20 

:  1.0 

I           1 94 .  6  7 

:          1.41  i 

:            -  7 

i^iaicina  -  ripuon 

:  238.63 

:          1 .41 

:  .6 

Iliiijois  —  Macoupin 

:  127,58 

:            .  64 

:             .  5 

j-i^     j^,  -lii  —  jjciiswee 

:  126.43 

:          1 . 67 

:  1.3 

Uiscor.  sin  — '  Pane 

:  154.95 

:         1. 18 

:  .8 

Miiiiie  so  ta  - '  Mc  Leo  d 

:  136.61 

:            .  85 

:  .6 

South  Dakota  -  foody 

:  206.39 

:           .  77 

.  4 

Iowa  -  Union 

:  165.33 

:  .84 

:             .5  • 

-  Story 

:         2  95 . 07 

:  1.37 

:             .  5 

Nebraska.  -  Y/ayre 

:          243 . 31 

:  -67 

.3 

Kansas  -  Butler 

:  57.01 

r  .41 

.7 

Virginia  -  Southampton 

:            39 . 80 

:          .  11 

:  .3 

iJorth  Carolina  -  Halifax 

:           47.86  ; 

!           .13  : 

:  .3 

Georgia  -  Bleckley 

:            41.46       ' j 

"  .22  : 

:'  .5 

Alabama  -  Montgomery 

:  50.81 

.17  ; 

.3 

Mississippi  -  Tunica'  : 

133.65 

1.61  : 

1.2 

icJuxicEjsuc  —  _cu.  oiiisT  .i  or&  ; 

68.66  : 

.   .24  ; 

r-f 

.  3 

Arkansas  -  St.  Prancis 

99 . 24 

.53  : 

.5 

Oklahoma  -  Payne  : 

37.56  ; 

.  38 

1.0 

Colorado  -  Delta  j 

79.02  : 

.96  : 

1.2 

-  Otero  ; 

187.40  : 

2. 19  : 

1.2 

Utah  -  Salt  Lake  ; 

278.13  ■  : 

2.82  : 

1.0 

Idaho  -  Ada  : 

237 . 84  : 

2.85  : 

1.2 

-  Madison  : 

252.12  : 

1.76    .  : 

.7 

Oregon  -  Washington  i 

136.51  : 

1.64  : 

1.2 

California  -  Sacramento  : 

184 . 85  : 

1.36  : 

.7 

-  Merced  : 

221.49  : 

1.63  : 

.7 

Arizona  -  Maricopa  ; 

307.75  : 

2.61  : 

.8 

1/  Mumber  of  farms  and  total  acreage  are  the  same  as  shov/n  in  Table  1. 


